By Gary Marsh
Team concepts largely failed not from expertise of team members, but the team leader had no line authority to hold members accountable since they were not their immediate supervisor who rated them via their performance reviews. This led to some team members letting deadlines slip and doing whatever they wanted which eroded the overall effectiveness of the team. A group manager was just a rose under a different name. It served the same role as the Division Chief.
Remember the one-stop shopping concept with Forest Service/BLM joint manager in certain field locations?. It only worked where the manager had authority to sign decision documents for either agency. It saved a position for efficiency, but some later questioned whether it really worked. Is there an opportunity to have more resource expertise shared between agencies without losing internal capacity?
Would it be worth consolidating various natural resource agency training centers? Each agency has one in different cities throughout the country, but in some cases all the agencies share a training center like the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center in Montana. Is there a possible staff and money savings in consolidation and opportunity to share resources and expose agency employees to other agency training opportunities?
GSA and natural resource agencies have conducted numerous analysis and studies on efficiencies gained or not gained through consolidation of multiple agencies into large single office campus, motor pools, equipment centers, etc. It may be time to review those and look for additional opportunities across the landscape.
Why not deal with the wild horse issue and save millions rather than reorganize? What is the annual cost of feeding and holding one wild horse?
Why is the wildfire budget unlimited or untouchable to be allocated to natural resource programs in low fire expense years?
Why not increase revenues via the outer continental shelf or energy leasing accounts to offset other non-revenue producing programs?