BF2S Forums Bush Reserves Right To Repeat Katrina Failures

Since the local government (NOLA) did not respond well, and in most cases, could not handle the scope of dealing with the hurricane, FEMA is next.  A horse show judge cronie of Bush should be hung, and so should the president who appointed him who said the buck stops with him.

Oh, and BOB's tie is sweet!

Ship, did you see this on C&L?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-27 13:19:01)

Kmarion wrote:

Katrina was a breakdown on all 3 levels of the government.

No argument with you on that one.

What are your thoughts on this latest action by Bush? Do you think the FEMA director should have 5 years of experience or should Bush be able to appoint anyone?

Years of experience do matter, but they're not the only criteria that should be considered.  But what Bush is doing is just maddening...he probably has a whole list of cronies (including sergeant [xxx xxxxx] who let Bush get out of a drunk driving arrest who he will soon make FBI chief) ready to go.

You'd think after brownie, he'd at least let someone who cares about humans and disaster relief interview potential FEMA chief candidates..or maybe hire from within?  Nope...now we got another dolt.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Years of experience do matter

If you gave the candidates a test and they each got the same relative score, then I would look at years of experience. Someone who functions better in real situations isn't always the person with the most time in their job.

Quality > Quantity.

what they managed doesn't necessarily matter, what matters is that they are able to manage a large organization. I look back through some of the old katrina crap and see very little evidence that FEMA didn't fulfill it's role once given permission to do so. It looks more and more like brown became a scapegoat, if he lost his job over this, why haven't nagin and the governor (i'm sorry, just woke from a nap, her name escapes me). The fact of the matter is that in FEMA's own mission statement it declares that it is not a first responder organization and that states should not expect assistance for 48-72 hours after the disaster event occurs. In fact, it is illegal for it to do so as the federal government CAN NOT overtake the operation of a state unless given the permission to do so. This is what governors are doing by declaring that they are in a "state of emergency", giving the fed permission to step in and administrate things (I realize most people that have already posted know this, but some that read this won't).

The core issue, however, if you remove all political party descriptors whether republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever, is the 5 year emergency field requirement. This is a knee jerk reactionary measure, and overly simplistic. It could even serve to handicap future searches for the FEMA chair. For example, any county fire chief would be eligible for the position, but if you think about it, the head of logistics for NASCAR would be eminently more qualified. You don't need to know how to re-install a stepdown transformer, fight a fire, the in's and out's of the miranda bill arrest issues, or how to resuscitate someone to know how to coordinate the distribution of the trucks, manpower, and equipment needed to do all of that.

Turquoise wrote:

FEMA should be disbanded.  The private sector can handle emergency services far better than the government -- as the Red Cross showed us during Katrina.  There should be an emergency fund for contractors in the field, but that should be the only government connection.

By the way, Ray Nagin and the Louisiana state government are surprisingly even less competent than the federal government, so that's why Katrina had been bungled even before Bush added to the problem.

Interesting. Personally I know nothing about the Red Cross. How are they funded? Solely through corporate donations?

IRONCHEF wrote:

SysTray wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Years of experience do matter

If you gave the candidates a test and they each got the same relative score, then I would look at years of experience. Someone who functions better in real situations isn't always the person with the most time in their job.

Quality > Quantity.

Hence the full sentence..and subsequent sentences supporting this view..

Years of experience do matter, but they're not the only criteria that should be considered.

I was merely stating that I believe they should be virtually the last thing considered

SysTray wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

SysTray wrote:

If you gave the candidates a test and they each got the same relative score, then I would look at years of experience. Someone who functions better in real situations isn't always the person with the most time in their job.

Quality > Quantity.

Hence the full sentence..and subsequent sentences supporting this view..

Years of experience do matter, but they're not the only criteria that should be considered.

I was merely stating that I believe they should be virtually the last thing considered

I totally disagree, as I think would most people who have done hiring at any point in their lives.

Given the choice between someone with 5 years of related experience and someone with no experience who took a written/oral/situational/whatever test and scored higher than anyone else in the history of the test itself, I personally would go for the experience. You can't write test questions asking how to get something through the molasses of bureaucracy. Nor does a test reveal anything about the people skills necessary to get stuff done in a big organization.

For me, the best indicator that someone is going to do a good job is whether they've already been doing a good job.

As for "most" of the people that have done any sort of hiring, you can't really speak for them Shipbuilder. I know for a fact that during my years living at home, my father would continuously come home and complain that the people showing up for interviews at the office were light years ahead of where the people that had worked in his office for awhile stood.

I'm not sure you're grasping the idea of the test thing either. I don't want to give them some 5 page test with A B C D as answers. I want a practical simulation of a real event so that they can feel the "molasses of bureaucracy".

SysTray wrote:

As for "most" of the people that have done any sort of hiring, you can't really speak for them Shipbuilder.

As someone who's hired many times for advanced positions with a global stock brokerage, I feel pretty confident that other people who've done hiring as well would share my opinions on the matter.

What is your experience in the area of hiring?

SysTray wrote:

I'm not sure you're grasping the idea of the test thing either. I don't want to give them some 5 page test with A B C D as answers. I want a practical simulation of a real event so that they can feel the "molasses of bureaucracy".

A test is a test is a test. A week-long situational simulation is better than a multiple choice test, but it's still a horriblly weak proxy for a track record of success in tangible, actual, real-life experiences.

But don't take my word for it. Any corporate recruiter/headhunter/HR admin, and ask them the #1 thing they look for when placing non-entry-level jobs, or the #1 factor in ensuring success in a placement. They'll tell you "related experience", guaranteed.