Hurricane Conrad

Do NOT mess w/ this man ... Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher!

Catching DCV readers up on the goings-on at the Hurricane Center:

When we last left this sordid tale, ~40% of the NHC staff had signed a letter asking for the head of the Center to be reassigned. The letter was produced and signed while a NOAA assessment team was on-site to investigate concerns about dysfunctionality at the Hurricane Center. Not surprisingly, the assessment team recommeded his (Bill Proenza's) removal for fear that his presence there would cause "disruption that threatens the Tropical Prediction Center's ability to fulfill its mission to the American people." (TPC = NHC)

(Dolberry advises that when you hear a politician or government bureaucrat hail the "American people" ... run for cover.)

So yesterday, NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher (esteemed boater of some sort), was called before Congress to explain his actions. Here are some of the highlights, see here for complete transcript: (Dolberry in green.)

1. He starts off by assuring the (get running) "American people" that NOAA and the NHC is fully prepared to do their job this hurricane season. Hey, what a difference a couple of weeks makes.

2. He then recounts what made Hurricane Conrad mad in the first place, that Proenza complained about the wasteful NOAA "200th" anniversary spending and how that money could have been better used for almost anything (he used replacing a satellite as an example). IMO, this infuriated Conrad because it's not the way a junior officer is supposed to behave.

3. He then goes on a bit of a "money laundering" tack, saying he hired this Mary Flack'n, er Mary Glackin (Hey, that's good angry blogosphering there. I'm sticking w/ Flack'n.) who in her first days on the job was instructed (by whom it is not named, but we can guess) to improve managerial rigor. She sent a memo to Proenza reminding him "the need for adherence to ... the chain of command".

4. Conrad says Flack'n got a call on the evening of the 6/18 from NHC staff requesting a call about the situation down there. The call took place at noon on 6/19. There's your most convincing evidence that this was a total whack job. In the government, nobody gets a conference call set up for the next day. It's simply not heard of. And in the summertime? Right.

5. Turns out the NHC forecasters were "scared", "anxious", "felt muzzled". They basically didn't think Proenza was up for the job. (That's fine. Um, NHC staff join probably 30-70% of the rest of us working stiffs inside and outside the government. The line is back there.)

6. The assessment team came down & felt they couldn't do their job w/ Proenza being there, trying to maintain support from those who hadn't signed on to the coup. Which would seem to be his right.

7. They receommended his temporary reassignment so they could finish their assessment.

8. The assessment (surprise, surprise, surprise) came back unanimously that Proenza needed to go.

OK, realistically, if you say something your boss doesn't like, it's (generally) within his right to prevent you from saying it again. And I don't think this rises to the level of "whistleblower" incident. NOAA's wasteful spending on stupid Safety Seagulls and spamming their own employees w/ "200th" anniversary nonsense are a matter of public record. But, you really have to marvel at the colossal blunderingness w/ which this has been accomplished.

Conrad, you got your guy. In the process you got a) major media coverage about problems w/ one of your premier groups, b) set a precedent for future staff insurrections, & c) raised the ire of a Democratic-controlled Congress right in the FY-08 budget discussions. To put it in your terms, I believe this is called "winning the battle, but losing the war."

(update)

Um, the DCV has to apologize. The picture above was not Hurricane Conrad. This is him below. We sincerely apologize to anyone offended.

Embarassing days for NOAA

Have you guys been following the soap opera at the National Hurricane Center? What a truly embarassing display by government employees of many ilks. The quick synopsis is this:

New guy (Bill Proenza) hired to manage NHC. Complains about NOAA budget decisions hurting the NHC's ability to forecast hurricanes. Congressional Democrats pressure NOAA to quit hurting the NHC's ability to forecast hurricanes. NOAA reprimands their new hire w/ a humorously threatening e-mail, saying he's hurting the NHC's ability to forecast hurricanes. New guy leaks reprimand to media. NOAA brass get bad press. Congressional Democrats pressure NOAA more.

This Monday, NOAA's administrator and long-time Dolberry nemesis "The Admiral", sends an assessment team down to Miami because of stated concerns about the NHC's ability to ... everyone now ... "because of concerns about the NHC's ability to meet its mission". (In The Admiral's world, everything is a mission. He's presumably talking about predicting hurricanes here.)

Now yesterday, about 40% of the NHC staff signs a petition calling for Proenza's ouster, saying (yawn) they're concerned about their ability to forecast hurricanes w/ him in charge. This seems rather suspicious, in light of NOAA's advance scouts being on-site.

Dolberry suspects none of the players in this whole drama are really concerned about protecting the public by accurately forecasting hurricanes. They are driven by either pride, anger, fear, opportunity, greed, or some other baser instinct. It's sad and embarassing for all of us in the public sector.

Lautenbacher should resign or be fired. This whole reckless incident has made the NOAA brand a laughingstock & more importantly has needlessly antagonized Congress. The Admiral is reminding me more and more of this ship's captain.

NOAA's Waterloo?

Mildly humorous story today as an environmental group staged a protest at NOAA headquarters claiming some scientific debate on global climate change is being surpressed by NOAA management at the behest of the Bush administration. This has been percolating for a while and is well summarized here.

I won't get into the politics of that. The interesting thing to me is the nature of NOAA management these days. It can be argued that four of the top six NOAA managers are ex-military. The administrator is a Vice Admiral. He's flanked by a Brigadier General, a Captain, and another Brigadier General (whom I've met & who is a nice guy). None of the four are meteorologists by degree. (Even the general counsel is noted as a Civil War buff.)

While I respect the military & ex-military (one in particular) & realize there's a long history between meteorology & the armed forces, this seems a little excessive to me. Plus, I don't understand why they still must be referred to by their military titles. (Dad, if you can explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.) It seems to me CEOs, deans, even U.S. Presidents shed their titles when they move on from the organization where they earned those titles.

What puzzles me most though is w/ this many ex-military officers, how were our HQ invaded by a group of treehugging wackos armed with nothing more powerful than strongly worded pamphlets on eco-friendly paper? Then, after having unfurled their flag in our territory, were allowed to retain the high ground for over 4 hours before being removed by ... a cherry picker. For heaven's sake, a cherry picker. Unacceptable. Acceptable means of removal would have involved water cannons, rubber bullets, and/or smoke grenades. It's time for a change in Silver Spring. Paging Stormin' Norman.