GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Homeland Security issues contract for presidential transition planning help

• 34677
  

  Instead of bashing people and the processes that are being implemented to improve our security, it's time to start embracing them and reaching out to assist in the process.

  The only effective means for enhancing the protection of people, facilities, critical infrastructure, and high profile assets is through a collective process.

  I would like to thank the Department of Homeland Security for recognizing the shortcomings associated with administration transitions and for taking the initiative to hire a support team to help streamline the process.

  Grant Haber Posted October 10, 2007 7:04 AM
• 34596
  

  Tom Ridge was fired and his handling of Colorado-based Immtec, Inc. was the main reason. Furthermore, Ridge's loyalty is to Vladmir Putin and his crime gang, not George Bush and his successor.

  The DHS long ago proved it only awards contracts to prime contractors majority-owned by Putin's crime gang. Examples are Digimarc and Lockheed Martin. This started under Ridge and Chertoff perpetuated the policy to cut backroom deals w/prime contractors loyal to President Putin's crime gang, rather than open bidding on major prime contracts to fair competition.

  With the recent firing of MP Jackson as Deputy Secretary we would hope that the dirty backroom deals would finally have stopped. The awarding of this contract to an organization with Tom Ridge apart of its governing council proves that the DHS is incorrigible and will continue to sellout the homeland defense of every democracy throughout the world to organized crime!

  Dawn Dippell Posted October 7, 2007 9:54 PM
• 34510
  

  There is no mention of the legal requirements of the Presidential Transition Act a statutory enactment that became effective for the Clinton Administration. It has created a rigourous (sic) process with OMB taking the lead in getting out directions for full compliance to all Department and Agency heads. If the full confirmation load in the Senate for DHS falls to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs there could very well be a dangerous hiatus. There is already some evidence that both foreign powers, UBL, and other groups note the lack of continuity between Presidential transitions between Republicans and Democrats. A simple solution could be adopted by Congress. Allowing the new Administration to specifically authorize the continuation in office of certain appointees until replaced by the newly confirmed appointee. President Richard Nixon in 1972 started the drill of asking all his appointees to submit a letter of resignation and he would review those he wanted to keep on. Now typically the new Administration asks the old Administration to get a letter of resignation from each political appointee dated prior to January 20th or effective January 20th. Under my proposal these letters would not have an effective date unless the positon is specifically identified prior to January 20th of 2009 as having had its resignation accepted by the new administration. It is time to end the amatuer night of Presidential transitions endangering the country.

  William R. Cumming Posted October 5, 2007 10:47 AM
• 34459
  

  Does this strike anyone else as a very strange activity, either to contract out or otherwise? Do people at other Cabinet-level agencies like Energy, Interior, State, etc. spend time preparing for Presidential turnover? Seems very an extremely specious thing to do for any Government agency.

  Jonathan Posted October 4, 2007 3:40 PM
• 34458
  

  Well, there's another $300,000 down the drain. DHS needs a "transition plan"? Give me a break. I agree with Richard Black that the best thing to do is get rid of the political appointees. In addition, get rid of Chertoff (that would be a HUGE upgrade in & of itself!) and cease all nonsense contracts such as this one. Also, DHS has been so dysfunctional that would anyone even NOTICE if the transition to the next administration wasn't "seamless"?

  dsr Posted October 4, 2007 3:33 PM
• 34440
  

  360 Political appointees? It's a wonder that anyone would want to work in DHS management and have to deal with an unqualified political appointee. It's one thing to brief an appointee on their role and responsibility, It's another thing to carry out that responsibility in a disaster.

  rad Posted October 4, 2007 12:23 PM
• 34438
  

  I think part of the problem may be that staff levels are just too low, too many vacancies in senior-level career positions. In such case, you just cannot pull what is left of your senior workforce away from their regular work for as long as this will take. What we should examine is why so many good career staff memebers walked out on them - oh... we have been doing that.

  AF HR Type Posted October 4, 2007 11:49 AM
• 34400
  

  Did this council contribute to the Republican party or the Bush campaign? Why go outside the government to find experts on transition when we go through this every 4 to 8 years. This sounds like payback. Homeland Security's performance would improve with the loss of most of the political appointees. I have faith the career employees will provide the bulk of the briefings and transitional information.

  Richard Black Posted October 4, 2007 8:20 AM
• 34399
  

  Wow!! $300K for a year long contract. That is a bargin. You couldn't (or just barely) pay 3 GS-13s (including fringe) for 12 months with $300K. Looks like the US got a good deal with this one. Kudos!

  Jeff Posted October 4, 2007 8:13 AM