GovernmentExecutive.com

Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Wednesday he is initiating a thorough review of the department's organization, operations and policies.

"Our review of the department is driven by our singular purpose of meeting the threats--both current and future--that face our nation," Chertoff told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security during his first hearing as DHS secretary. "Any changes we make or recommend as a result of this review will be designed to better enable us to identify, prevent, and, if necessary, mitigate and respond to attacks on our homeland."

He said the review would begin "within days." The newly minted secretary added that it is already clear to him that the department needs a policy shop that is "powerfully driven and well-resourced."

Several lawmakers said during the hearing that they think the department is not emphasizing the right priorities.

Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said the next two years are critical for establishing the department's credibility.

"Mr. Secretary, there are a number of problems at the department that I believe deserve your immediate attention," Rogers said. "I am afraid that, left unchecked, underlying management deficiencies will take root and become part of the department's own culture and legacy."

Chertoff said the comprehensive review will look beyond existing structures and perspectives.

"I want to emphasize that our analysis of the threats and risks will drive the structure, operations, policies and missions of the department, and not the other way around. We will not look at the threats and our mission through the prisms of the department's existing structures and functions," he said. "Instead, we will analyze the threats and define our mission holistically and exhaustively, then seek to adapt the department to meet those threats and execute that mission."

COMMENTS

• No, No. No. Again we see an argument that if there are management deficiencies the organization needs to set up a powerful Policy shop to address the concerns. Mr. Secretary, why don't you just let your HR Department come back to the table and report directly to you instead of to your Chief Financial/Admin. Officer. The government broke down managerially when HR was pushed away from the table and removed from being a strategic partner with the head of the agency- and everything got funnelled through CFO's and Chief Admin officers. You want to make DHS better- elevate HR. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted March 9, 2005 10:51 AM
• To the legacy INS Special Agent who compared immigration law with tax law, stop drinking the punch. I worked admin. cases as a GS-05 and had no problem doing it. It was NOT that difficult at all. If they were so complex how come INS S/A's were in danger of losing their GS-12's because management had them doing too many admin. cases and not enough criminal cases (and 1326 cases don't count)? GovExec.com reader Posted March 8, 2005 7:20 PM
• I agree with previous posters about the complexities of both INS law and Customs law, and the vast differences between the two. By merging two completely different, yet complex areas of investigation, ICE has dilluted the expertise of its legacy agents and has hindered its ability to effectively conduct investigations. Legacy INS groups and legacy Customs groups could theoretically function well by retaining their respective legacy agents. But every time an agent gets transferred to the other side of the house (as has happened countless times already), there is now a long learning period during which these agents don't contribute much due to their lack of expertise. Any time an agent is transferred, he/she is no better off than someone fresh out of the academy. I&NS Law, as stated previously, is unbelievably complex - as is tax law. And Customs already had enough areas of investigation (drugs, money, weapons, child pornography, port security) without having to lump INS law on top of it. Aside from ruining the investigative arm of each legacy agency, about the only thing that the merger of INS and Customs investigations has served to achieve is a new forum for punishing employees. Now, employees who are disliked by their superiors often get sent to the other side of the house as a penalty. Was this really the intent of the Homeland Security Act under which this merger took place? In my book, neither the dilution of the expertise of the legacy INS and Customs agents, nor the use of this merger as a means of punishing ICE agents do anything to even remotely foster a more secure U.S. GovExec.com reader Posted March 8, 2005 6:18 PM