Who Measures the Measurers?

Received an e-mail on NASCOE's support of Sen. Thune's S.944, which basically says: USDA can't close any field offices until it reviews the operations at the headquarters offices and implement changes there.

The Farm Service Agency and its predecessor have long had a system for measuring the work done in each office (mostly in terms of numbers of forms pushed) in order to allocate dollars and staff among the States and counties. (My impression, for what's it's worth, is that the system worked relatively well. This may be a slur on the old Soil Conservation service but I believe they used to lack such a system, perhaps partially because some of their funds come from local soil and water conservation districts and part from the Feds.) But it's never had a true system for measuring work at the national level. So there's always a tension: an operative in the local county office sees the instructions and systems coming into the office that were created by some faceless bureaucrats in DC. If they're defective the operative is caught between an upset farmer and obedience to instructions. Comes a proposed reduction in staffing and offices and there's the entirely reasonable suspicion that the field comes out on the short end of the stick.

It all goes back to the Bible: it's so much easier to measure the beam in the other's eye than the mote in yours (or is it vice versa).

Someday I may write about the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 but today I close down blogging for the rest of the week. I'll be back Sunday or Monday.

Vue-Graphs, Powerpoint, and Progress

When I was in the Army, I took a week of "charm school" (or maybe just 3 days) on how to be an instructor. One of their things was transparencies, sometimes known as Vue-graphs. I think IBM was well known for using them, along with other graphic aids. Move the clock forward about 30 years and Powerpoint became the big deal. But move another 15-20 years and skepticism builds.
Margaret Soltan at University Diaries reports the possible death of the Powerpoint presentation. But even better is a link in the comments, showing Abraham Lincoln in modern dress.

Give George His Due

George W. has many faults, but we liberals need to recognize his occasional virtues. See this snopes.com post on the comparison of Gore and Bush, house-wise.

More Opposition to Closing Offices

Observers of the political scene tend to blame interest groups for perpetuating government programs. The fuss over closing Farm Service Agency offices doesn't change that, but it can remind us that "interest groups" aren't just K-street lawyers and ex-pols, they are neighbors and fellow citizens. A proposal to close one Nebraska office roused 250 people to a meeting--here.

Interview--Marjorie Harshaw Robie

The Belfast Telegraph prints its interview with my cousin on her book.

One piece of wisdom:

"You understand very quickly there were lots of voices never heard or long since forgotten. England wasn't a single monolithic point of view any more than the Presbyterians were."

Is E-Government Simpler?

Just had an experience which shows either: (1) my impatience as I get older, or (2) the bureaucratic limits of e-government.

Background: Ken Cook links to a report about a change in standards for organic coffee. The blog he cites includes a post asking where the old policy is. Coffee is always interesting to me, almost as much as bureaucracy, so I go off to try to find the change. From the Salon article I go to the AMS publication (required under FOIA) of the appeal decisions under the national organic program during the most recent period. It contains a (poor) Code of Federal regulations cite (poor in that it omits the "7 CFR " portion) of §205 .403(a)(1). There's no indication of a change.

Now, in researching further, I come across the "E-Regulation" site, http://www.regulations.gov,
which was developed as part of Bush's e-government initiative. But this is the point where bureaucracy comes in: the regulations site is only for the documents published in the Federal Register; the site for the Code of Federal Regulations is the Government Printing Office's CFR access site. I pity the poor civilian who has to follow this.

It's worthy of note that the GPO is not an executive branch agency under the President. They've had initiatives to make government documents available to the public (like depositing copies in "federal depositary libraries") for a long time. Their Access program was around in the 1990's. (What follows is speculation.) Naturally they were in no mode to cooperate with Bush's people, who were johnny-come-latelies. That's if the Bush people even thought of asking GPO to cooperate--they may not have had the knowledge. The Bush people were focused on improving the process of developing regulations and managing the floods of public comments that they very occasionally attract. They were looking at regulations as writers, not as readers.

The result is that there's two overlapping databases--the Federal Register portion of GPO and the regulations.gov site, and no integration between code and changes.

(What about AMS's change--I can't tell, it looks as if their regulations have always required 100 percent inspection, so the "change" may have been a change in implementation, not policy.

John Phipps Again

John's on a good roll at his blog. I'm not sure I agree with his ending on this one. In effect, he compares farmers to beggars for taxpayer dollars, dependent on compassion. He has a point--he's commenting on a Daniel Gilbert column about a beggar who seemed disabled, but then was seen walking. People don't like mixed messages. If farmers are going to get taxpayer money, they'd damn well better be both grateful and needy. That's a reason for the rhetoric about corporate farmers, agribusiness, payments going to the rich, etc.

It's funny, I started writing this post saying I disagreed with the ending, but now I've almost changed my mind. It's terrible to get old and not be consistent.

Our Wimpy Soldiers?

The NY Times had an article on a brigade commander's reaction to casualties. He and the chaplain follow up on every death. I was struck by this:

Colonel Sutherland, 45, broke down after the 20th brigade soldier was killed earlier this year. “I went into a deep sorrow,” he said. “I was wallowing about in self-pity, worrying about the dead, worrying about those who have no worries. I was overwhelmed. At no point did I doubt our mission, but I couldn’t sleep that night.”

My early attraction to history was military--Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War were favorites. I compare this colonel to the reactions of military leaders of the past, like Grant in the absolutely brutal slogging in Northern Virginia. His colonels could lose 20 men in one day, one hour of fighting. It would be easy to mock Sutherland and the modern military, but, as an illustrious President used to say, it would be wrong. War has changed, just as people have changed.

I was waiting in the bank today to talk to an account manager, reading a magazine on Virginia business. One article was on investments in condos near college campuses, bought by parents so they can visit students and by alumni so they can really enjoy the football games. One set of parents had visited their freshman child eight times, by January! Life today seems so much more valuable, we've got so much more invested in each life, and it makes sense that the colonels reflect this as well.

But what my mind says doesn't keep me from thinking: "in my day, people weren't wimps and we walked to school uphill both ways".

Hearing Past the Rage

Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting piece in Slate on looking past knee-jerk reactions to hear what the other person is actually saying.

Have Some Fun

See what Google's been up to here.

Or here