Reader Comments – 04-16/17-2010 Government

PERSONAL to Fred Millar – Sorry Fred. I decided to leave the first post up since I didn’t know how many people may have read it and I didn’t want that to be your last word on the subject for those people. Would that I had never uttered/written an intemperate word, but that does happen. Rest assured that I had assumed that there was more than was written involved in your first post and I am thick-skinned enough not to have taken it too personally. Besides, you had previously compared me favorably with IF Stone, how could I be upset.

TO EVERYONE ELSE – Fred Millar, a long time reader-commentor to this blog, posted two comments (please read both) to my recent blog about the DHS Open Government Dialogue. While Fred may regret the tone and word choice of the first post, he does bring up a very important point about advocates in general and this blog in particular; we are generally in an adversarial position with those that we write about.

Advocates as Adversaries 

If I thought that industry and the Government were both doing everything possible to protect chemical facilities (and by extension their employees and neighbors) from the possibility of a terrorist attack, then there wouldn’t be much point in me writing this blog. It takes quite a bit of time and effort to put out these daily posts. No, I truly believe that there is substantial room for improvement on part of both parties, so I intend to educate, cajole, push and prod everyone further down the road to safety and security.

I am different from a number of advocates, I don’t believe that those that those that I am trying to get to move in the desired direction are inherently evil or bad. I don’t believe that anyone in industry wants their facility to be attacked by terrorists, or wants dangerous chemicals to be released upon unsuspecting neighbors. I don’t believe that the politicians on the ‘other side’ are trying to destroy the country.

I firmly believe that where inappropriate decisions have been (or will be) made, they have been the result of inadequate information, shortsighted reasoning, ignorance, and in some cases criminal stupidity. I can’t do much to stop the later, but the rest is fair game.

Advocates as Trainers 

Having spent 15 years in the Infantry, most of it as a Non-Commissioned Officer, I learned an awful lot about people, how to train people and how to motivate people. One nearly universal lesson (there are no truly universal lessons) that I did learn was that beating someone over the head, calling them stupid, and only pointing out what is wrong with their actions is so completely counter-productive that I cannot understand why anyone does it.

There are two important tools in training, repetition and rewards. You keep people practicing a task until it becomes second nature. You reward people when they do things right, always starting with small rewards because there is a long way to go to get near perfection. And, since my job here is essentially a training task, I’ll use the same tools. You’ll hear plenty of repetition from me.

And when I see someone doing something right, I’ll give them the public recognition that they deserve. What about when something is not done well? Well my training experience has provided me with an exceptional tool for that as well; you use the “What, Why, and How” technique. You tell people what was wrong with what they did, why it was wrong (the consequences) and how it should have been done. If you can manage to do that without calling them names or making them feel stupid, you will usually succeed.

Open Government

Now, back to the original topic, the Obama Administration’s Open Government program, in particular the program at DHS. Will this make a positive change in how the government operates? Who knows, my crystal ball is still in the shop. It has a chance if the public becomes involved and contributes, and the politicians listen, and the bureaucrats find some useful suggestions.

I can’t do much about the politicians and the bureaucrats (though many do read this blog so there is some hope even there), so I will continue to push for public involvement. Now before some one accuses me of be all ‘populist’ and such, I believe that the ‘public’ is just more than the people walking the streets. It includes corporate America, all of the NGO’s, the folks working on K Street, the labor unions, the churches and even the aliens (legal and otherwise) living here in this country contributing to our economy. All of those ‘people’ have a voice that deserves to be heard.

Potentially the best thing about the DHS Open Government Dialogue, is that it gives those without the money and/or power to amplify their voices the chance to be heard. But that is only going to happen if all of the public participates, discussing and voting on the ideas that have been submitted. So, all of you with a soap-box, get your readers/listeners/followers to participate. The more the merrier; the more effective it can be.