It was refreshing to read that workers at NOAA and USGS felt as though their climate research was being censored by administration officials.
No, I’m not for restricting honest, open discussion of pivotal issues, but I was pleased to see something other than immigration, Iraq, and India being hashed around like breakfast food at the local greasy-spoon restaurant.
It’s been reported that contractors and employees alike at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) feel pressure from Administration officials when discussing anything about climate, global warming, etc.
I could say that this issue has reached a climax or that these charges are anti-climatic as a result of the passage of time, but I would be shamelessly guilty of playing upon words, wouldn’t I? It would be fun, though. However, I’ll refrain from such silliness, just this once.
Seriously, how government employees or agents “represent” views is important. This applies in the private sector as well. Employers don’t want their staffs mouthing off about this-or-that, without it being vetted or coordinated through some public affairs or communications process. It’s as though government agencies and companies want to ensure their citizens and customers that their enterprise is of one mind. Of course, everyone knows that virtually no two employees feel alike about major matters facing their jobs, careers, or companies (agencies). Nevertheless, bureaucracies seem compelled to play the game. They must appear of one voice, one message.
I’m not knocking the need for having everyone singing from the same hymnal. If any agency lacks a clear focus and commitment to mission, it’s doomed to failure. Yet, how do we deal with honest dissent, within the office or publicly through the press?
Arguments can be made for either side: control the message or allow for open discussion.
Let’s hear more from those involved at NOAA and USGS. We need to understand the administration’s position and reasoning. We need to consider how such dialogue affects policy development and execution. We need to evaluate if the public forum is the proper one for policy deliberation, and if so, why, when, and under what conditions, if any? If not, why not?
What’d’ya think? This is YOUR Forum. Please give our readers insight into the challenges of the Executive Branch and the ways in which its operations can be improved.
Don’t wait. Drop us a line. Tell your story. Begin the dialogue. YETMO’s mission is to stimulate thought, debate, and introspection. We can use The Forum to do that on this and all other important public matters.
++++
YETMO: “You’re Entitled To My Opinion,” A Balanced Point of View
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 425 words.
© April 6, 2006