|
|
|
|
I see most of the off topic ideas had the most votes and commentary. I guess the fact that they landed in the garbage heap tells us all we need to know about your intention with this website...
|
|
|
Good Morning,
I know not if this pertains or if it is within the scope of this.
I suggest we create a luncheon/ potluck each month for the Native American people that work within DOI in order to foster the tribal member mentality that we all come from.
I am new to this DC construct but I now understand why so many of my kinfolk return home and do not stay on working here.
Let me explain:
In our home setting we live and work in very close proximity to most all our relatives & our acquaintances, we attend ceremonies with most as well those that are Native American.
Upon this DC relocation, I know of very few Natives to interact with, know of zero ceremonies to attend, know of zero gatherings offered to Native Americans due to our collective or likewise mindedness.
In my previous employer, we had potlucks for b-days, employees joining or leaving, deaths or other significant life events within our ranks, of course plus the holidays.
I have seen only one event thus far and I only heard of it through the grapevine, I don’t know if I was invited.
It was so haphazard that a true quality experience was not possible.
I am asking for a once a month luncheon (potluck?) in a suitable environ to accommodate the number of Native Americans to attend.
We consider ourselves Native American accordingly.
Thus we can truly meet each other, enjoy our Native humor together, maybe network and possibly develop the caring lifestyle we left at our own tribal home settings.
Respectfully,
Hoti’ hu ga
(Kenneth A. LeMieux)
Program Coordinator
Division of Workforce Development
1951 Constitution Ave. NW, MS-17-SIB
Washington, DC 20245
(Posted by the Moderator on behalf of Hoti' hu ga)
|
|
|
I think we need to take a hard look at paper expenses and whether the government could start producing and making its own paper. I don't know how many millions we spend each year on paper, but I would think we could make our own paper and supply not only DOI, but all other government agencies. We have millions of acres of forest property in public domain, a portion of which we have to log every year to maintain healthy forests. Rather than try to sell this lumber to the private sector, then have them sell us back paper (the finished product) at a huge markup, why don't we cut out the middle man and do it ourselves.
There are probably a number of lumber mills shut down throughout the country (especially in the Pacific Northwest) that we could buy or lease at a fraction of the cost and start making our own product to service our own needs. There are several benefits:
1) We would not have to pay for the lumber, since we already own it. We would have to pay to log the acreage to get the lumber to the mill(s).
2) We would be putting idle lumber mills back into production and provide NEW jobs to municipalities that need it. These mills we could either buy or lease for pennies on the dollar, since I would assume many of these facilities have already been written off by paper companies.
3) Possiblity to have significant savings in the long run since we would have significant economies of scale due to the wide use of paper in DOI and all other government agencies.
Now, I don't know about the potential legal/political ramifications that would preclude the government from doing this, but I think it might be something that we should take a serious look at.
|
|
|
It would be useful to have regular benchmarking exercises performed on both commercial and open source GIS software on both the Windows and Linux 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. Such benchmarks would include serving up data via OGC web Services, http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards, such as WMS, WFS, WCS, SOS, etc. This exercise could be based on the techniques used at the 2009 FOSSG WMS Shootout.
Also, desktop GIS systems could be benchmarked on the processing of large data sets like a 400GB ASCII Lidar dataset, or merging and reprojecting 1 m NAIP data for an entire state.
The results of these benchmarks could be made publicly available, or if restrictions are placed on the publication of benchmark results by the software license, shared across the Department of Interior.
|
|
|
I have received inquiries about the use of LinkedIn from bureau employees.
When I looked into it I found that almost every Bureau and Service has a
page on LinkedIn and frequently hundreds of employees are listed as members
of LinkedIn. Yet there is no real policy that I have found. It seems that
while we don't block the use of LinkedIn we refrain from any official
approval. I suggest that LinkedIn could be used as part of an open
government iniative.
Dwight Petersen
Washington Office
|
|
|
I would like the DOI to undertake a study on the relationship between wild horses, invasive grasses like "cheatgrass", and wildfires, especially in the Western United States. Also, I would like the reports and conclusions of the study to be made available on the DOI website.
I have submitted a number of ideas and comments regarding wild horses on our public lands. One of the issues that frequently come up in wild horse discussion groups is the invasive plant commonly called "cheatgrass". As I understand it, this grass is extremely opportunistic. It grows in the early spring and then dies, providing dried ground fuel that helps spread wildfires.
There have been observations that wild horses feed on cheatgrass when it first emerges, before seed heads have a chance to develop and disperse. There have been professional firefighters who consider the absence of wild horses on areas where cheatgrass has taken hold actually increases wildfire danger.
I think this type of study could provide important information on mitigating the available fuels that contribute to the dangerous and destructive wildfires that ravage our lands, and might find our wild horses are more than icons of the West. They may be a natural, widely available, and economical fire brigade.
|
|
|
During the past four years, I have three appeals before the Merit System Protection Board against the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. During two hearings, I learned much about the scientific staffing of the U.S. Geological Survey, and it makes me wonder whether this agency seeks to eliminate science altogether and substitute political correctness to please whichever group currently holds the power in Washington, D.C.
The hearings cover the period from 2003 through 2007 and involve over 100 individual selections for senior supervisory scientists. Most were at the level of GS-15, which the Office of Personnel Management classifies as equivalent to a full professor at a university or research institute.
Witnesses for the U.S. Geological Survey were all in agreement that experience and ability in research was only a minor factor in the selections. They also agreed that the scores on the examinations given to fill the vacancies were not relied upon in the selections. The general agreement was that the ability to deal with people holding various opinions and representing various interest was very important.
The witnesses also affirmed that the people selected would be in charge of the administration of scientists performing research. When asked why there were more than 100 different selections for supervisory scientists who would not be responsible for performing research themselves and not even one selection for a researcher during the same period, one of the witnesses strongly asserted that the leadership of the agency lacked sufficient funding from Congress to fill any positions for researchers after filling all of the positions for supervisory scientists that were opening due to retirements and other attrition. That naturally left the open question concerning who these supervisory scientists were being hired to supervise. Presumably, there was also attrition among the research scientists, who were not being replaced.
A vice-provost of a large university provided me with a sworn statement concerning the qualifications that an applicant for a full professor position was supposed to have before he and his colleagues would consider hiring them. These included a doctoral degree, considerable experience performing research and supervising the research of others, and a long list of superior publications. The Merit System Protection Board judge rejected this statement from the file, since that board has always ruled in favor of the agency and rejects evidence that would weaken the agency's position.
This disregard of evidence was necessary because during the testimony, it was revealed that the majority of applicants selected for one GS-14 and several GS-15 positions had not even earned a master's degree in any field. Few had earned a doctoral degree, and most had not even authored or co-authored one scientific publication, other than unrefereed agency reports. Some had authored nothing at all during careers as U.S. Geological Survey employees lasting more than 20 years.
It was clearly stated in the rejected statement by the vice-provost that no person without any graduate degree at all would be considered for an assistant professor or lecturer position, let alone for the position of full professor. Furthermore, a person holding a master's degree would only be selected by a university of research institute under highly unusual circumstances. He gave the example of a woman who had only earned a master's degree but had won a Nobel Prize for a discovery she made.
Concerning the ability to get along with people of many different backgrounds, for which agency witnesses were allegedly searching, the testimony was almost comical. One individual selected for a GS-15 position had spent six years in graduate school and left without being awarded so much as a master's degree. The official responsible for hiring him explained that he did not receive a degree because "he had a falling out with his professor." When discussing why he wanted to leave his position with the U.S. Forest Service to work for the U.S. Geological Survey, the same official explained that he could not get along with this supervisor. So much for "people skills."
During the course of the proceedings, I noted that several witnesses had apparently committed perjury. When I complained to the administrative judge of the Merit System Protection Board, she explained that the Board is not a criminal court, so there is just nothing she can do about it. I also complained to the FBI and presented them with the sworn statements with the false information together with the documents showing that the person had to know that the testimony was false. The FBI agent rejected the complaint on the grounds that it has other priorities but sent a copy to the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. He rejected this complaint on the ground that the matter was before the Merit System Protection Board, and the judge would take appropriate action.
Another problem was the alteration of documents submitted by the agency to the Board. I had obtained copies of documents relevant to agency hiring through the Freedom of Information Act prior to filing the appeals. The copies of what were allegedly the same documents were submitted to the Board by the U.S. Geological Survey after small but important changes had been made. I had before and after copies of these documents and submitted them to the Board, which treated them as irrelevant, again because the Board is not a criminal court.
I assume that it is difficult to get people who have spent at least five years in graduate school to commit crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice as part of their duties, so the problem is solved by the Department of the Interior by placing persons with no scientific credentials at all in positions normally requiring senior scientific personnel.
This is facilitated by the complete lack of standards in personnel selections, as I repeatedly witnessed. Examination scores are rejected, and all scientific qualifications demonstrated on the resume are disregarded in favor of vague "people skills." One thing remained constant, however. That was the fact that everyone selected already had friends in the agency. In short, senior agency personnel are free to hire anyone they please for any position, regardless of whether or not they have any appropriate training or experience.
|
|
|
There should be a way to delet old comments that are no longer active..if there is away I can not see where to delete on the page.
|
|
|
At the field level, there is wide disparity in how federal staff complete their core work. For example, if you were to survey different parks, refuges, or forests on how they monitor, manage, and eradicate invasive plants, you would get a different answer most of the time from every unit. For this invasive plants example, a common framework focused on best practices for managing core work needs to be developed that includes the full range of activities from field data collection & management, eradication methods, monitoring, analyses, mapping, etc. Include standard practices for making this data available to the public in easily digestable form. The solutions would center on SOP's, guidelines, standards, and policies that could be applied and used across agencies and would incorporate requirements of both the local level and central offices (WASO). So a new employee would be able to apply mobile data collection standards from one job to another resulting in lower costs and more consistency in data collection. This will lead to improved federal employee productivity and facilitate better science in decision-making.
We're developing lots of new data standards, but staff need additional context and solutions. Developing new national applications and repositories is only a small part of the solution. The need to analyze and develop best practices for important field programs applies to many different areas including law enforcement, facilities management, wildife management, and wilderness management. The data collection and management (including GIS) aspects of these programs are inconsistent and lame. The framework for improving business process needs to be consistent across programs with integration where appropriate. As an example, mapping solutions, most likely, would be consistent across most core field programs and usually would not be unique to one activity.
|
|
|
As someone who has worked frequently with USFWS personnel on endangered species issues, I have found that scientists that go against the accepted party line are often attacked by their superiors, particularly at the state supervisor and regional director levels. This has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation-- and as a result many of the good scientists have left the USFWS to take jobs elsewhere. I have seen a steady stream of bright people move through the state offices in New Mexico and Arizona, and then give up when their views were either attacked directly or were not acknowledged as having any value. USFWS scientists must be protected from political pressure from their supervisors, and when complaints (either formal or informal) are filed, they should not be ignored or swept under the rug as they usually are now.
|
|
|
The National Park Service has a web based NEPA public review tool/program called PEPC - Planning, Environment and Public Comment. This program is geared towards making all NPS NEPA Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) available for public review and comment. All NPS units use PEPC as the tool to make plans and impact analyses available for public review and the public can then comment on the web at the site. Or they can write letters or email the park about the plan/NEPA document. All parks when issuing EAs/EISs for public review and comment should make the PEPC web site avialable, along with any other form of availability.
The DOI should evaluate this tool and ensure that all DOI agencies utilize this or a similar tool for public involvement related to NEPA documents.
|
|
|
Unlike other federal departments such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior (DOI) currently lacks a strong policy governing how agency scientists and experts can interact with the public and the media. As a result, the ability of DOI scientists to speak freely about their research is not uniformly protected and varies from agency to agency within DOI.
Placing data sets on the website only gets us part of the way to government transparency. The next big step will involve changing the culture of the department and allowing its experts to provide for context and interpretation of those data sets.
Therefore, in order to promote transparency and the free exchange of scientific ideas, the DOI should adopt a department-wide communications policy that protects the right of its employees to speak with the public and the media. Such "open" communications policies have already been adopted at places like NASA and NOAA and should pose no problems at the DOI.
Any such policy should incorporate the following principles:
•Scientists and researchers may freely express their personal views. All federal employees have a right to express their personal views outside of a few narrow restrictions (such as releasing classified or proprietary information), provided that he or she makes an explicit disclaimer that he or she is speaking as a private citizen and is not seeking to represent official agency policy. He or she should be allowed to speak freely about his or her research and to offer his or her scientific analysis--even in situations where the research may be controversial or have implications for government policy. Agency policies governing communication with the media should make this option clear and explicit to employees.
•A scientist or researcher has the right to review, amend, and comment publicly on the final version of any document or publication that significantly relies on his or her research, identifies him or her as an author or contributor, or purports to represent his or her scientific opinion. While editing by non-scientists is often necessary and useful, final review by scientific experts is essential to ensuring that accuracy has been maintained in the clearance process.
•Agency employees have clearly defined responsibilities in working with the media. Employees are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their communications and should not represent the agency on issues of politics or policy without prior approval from the agency’s public affairs officer (PAO). Employees are also responsible for working with the PAO to make significant research developments accessible and comprehensible to the public.
•PAOs have clearly defined roles, such as responding promptly to media inquiries and providing journalists and agency staff with accurate information, but not acting as "gatekeepers" of information. Scientists and researchers should not be required to obtain pre-approval from the PAO before responding to a media request about their research. However, it is appropriate to require scientists and researchers to give the PAO prior notice of such interactions when possible, and to recap the interview afterward.
•Public affairs staff should have a plan for disseminating the media policy to agency scientists and researchers and should conduct trainings in effective media communication that emphasize scientific openness. The official agency media policy should be publicly available on the agency website.
Timothy Donaghy
Scientific Integrity Analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
|
|
|
Here's an idea concerning BLM's wild horse and burro program. Why not get congress to pass a national microchipping law for horses. All those individauls who own a horse have to get it micro-chipped and all those in the wild horse and burro program. That way they can be tracked with a digital profile that is located in the microchip. Very similar to the micro chips for dogs and cats. When the horse is bought or sold or adopted the data would be updated. Add GPS and hook it up to Google Earth and the Public could "see" their "wild" horse or burro anytime on the web.
Then when they are abandoned by their owner or run away into the "wild" and end up in the herds of the West and are rounded up by the wild horse and burro program you can call the owners and tell them to come get their horse. If they refuse charge them for room and board of their animal.
This would help in several ways. 1) lost horses could be returned to owners; 2) BLM would know what tax payer to charge for taking care of the horse; and 3) That most of the "wild horses and burros" are not really wild, but abandoned or lost and thus stray animals.
Then there would be data concerning the origin of these horses and burros.
|
|
|
What happened to asking the horse people and organizations and burro sanctuaries as to the correct way to handle these issues instead of contractors who kill the horses with cowboy tactics in helicopters.... what happened to birth control for the animals... what happened to the laws that gave these animals safety... what happened to not allowing the cattle industry to use our public lands and wetlands and drive out our animals...
|
|
|
As a taxpayer and American citizen who has entrusted the care of OUR wild horses to government, I REFUSE to support the continued mismanagement of current BLM and it's policies in regards to this nation's wild horses and burros. I refuse to watch more unnecessary gathers of healthy horses off of healthy sustainable rangelands, while on the same lands, (claimed to be unsustainable), grazing rights have increased for private livestock.
We have 33,000+ of our nation's wild horses stockpiled in captivity, and a mere 25,000- (and declining) small herds dotted across of western rangelands left, with another 12,000 scheduled for removal by the end of 2010, adding to the current cost to taxpayers of 29-34 (and growing) million to care for captured animals annually. With PROPER and less invasive methods of management, our wild herds cost us minimal in contrast in the wild. I, as a taxpayer and American citizen REFUSE to allow the removal of any more of our American mustangs to be added to the current stockpile of CAPTIVE mustangs, paid for by this nation’s hard working taxpayers.
The American public has made it clear that they want their wild horses “properly managed” on our western frontiers, as originally established on 49 million HMA acres, rather then removing more mustangs, thereby reducing genetic viability at this unsettling and escalated rate. I, along with the many who have already shared their voice and concerns, demand any further mustang removals be stopped until there is a public hearing and investigation held by Congress regarding BLM's management of America's wild horses and burros (which currently are approved only by BLM and DOI). There should also be a moratorium on all gathers until Congress has completed public hearings and an investigation and reached a decision about the appropriate management of these animals consistent with the laws that protect them. It is also my recommendation that prior to any future removals, wild horse and burro specialists, in conjunction with independent and neutral ecologists, must first determine animal health concerns, along with rangeland sustainability reports to justify removals. Since these wild horses BELONG to the American people, a coalition of concerned and involved parties, must be formed to oversee the health the well-being of our Nation’s (yours and my) wild horses and burros.
|
|
|
The 1,600 members of Open Source for America are dedicated to supporting and guiding federal efforts to make the US government more open through the use of open source software. We have established recommendations for all agencies to consider in their Open Government Plans, with these recommendations especially highlighting the need to remove barriers to the successful leveraging of open source software and open IT more generally. Open source software would seem to us to be the most concrete form of participation available to the government's constituents and its employees. These recommendations -- and the ability to comment further on them -- are at http://opensourceforamerica.org/guidelines.
|
|
|
So I've been looking at all the agency Open web interfaces for my job. I absolutely LOVE the DOI because it runs some of the coolest programs in the country! I think you guys should exploit this through cool widgets (perhaps featuring cool scientific findings) and multimedia galleries with images and videos of places like the National Parks (because we could all use a 3-minute vacation in the middle of the day!).
Also, I was going through the "valuable datasets" and I feel like an interactive map hyperlinking to data on the datasets would be helpful, especially on the volunteer opportunities dataset. That particular data set is difficult to follow. And plus, it will make it more accessible for people like me who prefer to search by region, versus job title. Also, a map of the regions in the wildfire datasets would be helpful for interpretation.
Not to be a copycat, but NASA's open website is really fun, as is the new climate web portal from NOAA. DOI has just as much exciting stuff to share with the world, and it would be really fun to get to access it easily.
Good job so far!
|
|
|
I believe the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program should stop gathering wild horses and burros until they can afford to feed and care for the ones they already have in holding facilities. Perhaps birth control methods could be used in some manner to control the size of herds in the west in the meantime. It just is not responsible to gather healthy horses and put them in the facilities that are already over crowded. I know, as I have been a volunteer with the program for 4 or 5 years, that most horses that arrive at the eastern holding facility are in good shape. They are the lean, half-starved creatures the public has been led to believe they are.
It is rumored that HMA's have been emptied of wild horses. These HMA's were designated for wild horse use in the 70's wild horse and burro act and as far as I know have never been lawfully removed from the program. Perhaps some of those horses now in holding could be returned to those HMA's or perhaps horses could be redistributed to those areas now empty of horses.
Finally, the BLM seems to have become hostile to volunteers. The last time I showed up to help out a BLM representative told me I was not needed but changed her mind when she learned I had come to take part in the taping of a TV documentary supporting the horses.
My suggestions are:
1. Do not gather any more horses and burros till you can feed and care for the ones you have.
2. Reopen zeroed out HMA's and use them for horses that must be moved.
3. Embrace willing volunteers.
|
|
|
I would like to suggest that there be a site where there are categories of issues that the American people are having and what the DOI is doing about them. This site could be one where people can click on an already listed issue or create one that is of concern to them that creates a new category. Then, similar to this site, people can vote as to if this is a concern for them, or not and the DOI should respond to these once they see where the American people are asking for the DOI to help, change, fix, or find a solution to whatever is of importance to the people. This should be backed up in some way to make sure the DOI is accountable for listening to the nation and responding honestly. I'm sure someone has a good way of setting up guidelines to make this happen...
It can also state what the DOI is dealing with, giving the American people an idea of what and how things are being handled, a non-polished version, but actual facts, via honest official reports, etc. Again, I'm sure someone has ideas as to how to go about doing this...
|
|
|
Having worked for both state & federal government businesses, I saw much poverty in state agencies and much waste in federal entities, so I w'd suggest more sharing closer to the communities.
|
|
|
"Under Bush, the Interior Department became a lawless bureaucracy that actively worked to enrich the nation's most powerful energy interests. Top-level officials secretly allowed oil companies to keep billions in royalties owed to taxpayers, opened up 26 million acres of federal land to oil and gas drilling, denied wilderness protection to another 220 million acres, rewrote scientific reports to eliminate safeguards for endangered species, and even snorted coke and had sex with the very oil interests they were supposed to be regulating. "It was Dodge City," says Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who chairs the Senate Energy Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests."
-"Obama's Sheriff" by Tim Dickinson,
Featured in Rolling Stone Magazine in 2009
If the Department of the Interior wants to have any credibility when it comes to accountability and transparency, then they need to make publicly available all information relating to crimes that occurred, misconduct within the agency, and what is being done to fix what happened in the Department of the Interior from 2001-2008 under Gale Norton and Julie A. MacDonald.
|
|
|
While employees of the USFWS all support a common mission, there are no core values that are expressed or followed. Just like in the military (e.g., Honor, Courage, Commitment in the Navy), the USFWS could adopt some core values to subscribe by. Some suggestions would be: Open Communication, Teamwork, Respect for Others, and Accountability.
|
|
|
The DOI should solicit public nominations for "treasured landscapes" discussed below by Spotts. They are the public's lands; let the public help inform which portions of its lands are most treasured. This need not replace more traditional executive branch designations, but it can help democratize and engage and invest the public in the discussion of public land protection.
|
|
|
Current regulations preclude public notice, comment or National Environmental Policy Act reviews on public lands mining exploration smaller than five acres.
The DOI should change mining regulations or its interpretation thereof to require BLM to undertake public and environmental reviews of exploratory drilling.
|
|
|
The DOI should enact a monitoring and reporting system to demonstrate in clear terms how administrative units within its agencies are complying with President Obama's Freedom of Information Act memo.
Metrics for demonstrating "a presumption of disclosure" and cooperation sought by that memo could be as simple as the number of annual FOIA appeals or lawsuits lost.
Let's see some accountability and measurable progress on this important issue.
|
| Displaying 1 - 25 of 83 Ideas |
|
I Agree
I Disagree
Closed
Close