Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[gdlewen]

There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal about the chair of the NTSB which gives a bit of insight into how she works: https://www.wsj.com/business/airlin...fwjpfxpu1qj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink .

She says her obligation is to "the families of those who have been hurt" in transportation accidents. That's good, but since weather affects everyone, I'm hoping we can find a chair who views her/his obligation is to the public.

And, because I keep being asked, I am retired and have zero interest in being chair or working for the NDRB. While may be willing to work in the setting up stage (3-6 months), I'm retired and happily so.

@Mike Smith I'm hoping you will be able to effectively influence the final form of the bill and keep it focused on natural disasters and how to improve public safety in the face of those disasters.

Don't y'all* slap me around for this, but if the administration does not change course this year (in a big, partisan, way), this bill as filed will just permit more government usurpation of states' and citizens' rights.

---

* I insist that the English language must have a distinct second-person plural pronoun and, thankfully, the South has given us one.

 

[Mike Smith]

Everyone: the NDRB will have subpoena power (as the NTSB does); but it will not have enforcement powers. The NTSB does not have enforcement powers, either. The persuasive power of both is/will be through a great reputation and competence.

 

[gdlewen]

Everyone: the NDRB will have subpoena power (as the NTSB does); but it will not have enforcement powers. The NTSB does not have enforcement powers, either. The persuasive power of both is/will be through a great reputation and competence.

I'm sorry, Mike, but I am ever more and more impressed by the ability of government officials to warp and manipulate the branches of government to act as weapons against the people.

While I understand that there are no explicit statements of enforcement powers in this bill, I do wonder how the provisions will be twisted to accomplish ideological agendas--on with sides of the spectrum, actually, just to be fair.

I understand a disaster review function is something for which you have long advocated, and I think we all agree that such a function is needed. There is just stuff in this bill that I think can be leveraged, or deliberately interpreted, and then weaponized against people and I hope you can get that stuff eliminated.

 

[Mike Smith]

I'm sorry, Mike, but I am ever more and more impressed by the ability of government officials to warp and manipulate the branches of government to act as weapons against the people.

While I understand that there are no explicit statements of enforcement powers in this bill, I do wonder how the provisions will be twisted to accomplish ideological agendas--on with sides of the spectrum, actually, just to be fair.

I understand a disaster review function is something for which you have long advocated, and I think we all agree that such a function is needed. There is just stuff in this bill that I think can be leveraged, or deliberately interpreted, and then weaponized against people and I hope you can get that stuff eliminated.

Would you please quote the language? Thank you.

 

[gdlewen]

Would you please quote the language? Thank you.

Where to begin?

I am using the text of HR 6450 in what follows.

RECOMMENDATIONS​

The word "recommend" appears 66 times in the text if the bill. Now, I know the purpose of any review board is to make findings, and often, to make recommendations. So, I don't think it is possible to eliminate the "recommend" function, but the scope of "recommendations" must be narrowly constrained.

Consider the case of the recent Maui wildfire. From news reports I have seen, no one has been allowed inside La Haina since the fires. Insurance companies can't get in to do assessments, and as a result, banks are foreclosing on mortgages on homes that don't exist anymore and the residents have been unable to make payments because...well...they are homeless. But, I digress.

What if the NDRB were to recommend that rebuilding not resume until some threshold of wildfire prevention (TBD) be met?​

Remember, the composition of the NDRB includes those with "demonstrated knowledge in emergency management, fire management, emergency medical services, public health, physical sciences, social science, behavioral science, or architectural and engineering with post-disaster evaluation or building forensics expertise in their respective field."

• social science, behavioral science, public health: all fields of expertise that, really, are not "hard science" and have little-or-nothing to do with natural disaster warning or prevention. But these professionals can inject social engineering agendas into what should be formally a scientific exercise

Such a recommendation "not to rebuild until" could be used as a pretext for the state of Hawaii to declare that La Haina not be rebuilt: be rezoned as [parkland or non-residential, non-commercial, whatever]; or worse, the Federal government could simply seize the land. In the absence of such a recommendation by a NDRB, the political cost of this would simple be too high. But this kind of "recommendation" could be enough political cover to try it. Land has been seized by government for less. (It's kinda being seized right now in Maui, just by the banks with government assistance.)

Therefore: the kind of recommendations made by the NDRB should be narrowly constrained in the law to prevent this kind of overreach.

One More Example--More Specific and Less Speculative​

Section 4(b)(4) [the Board] may, by a majority vote, decide to review any natural hazard incident that occurs after the date of enactment of this Act upon recommendation by the Office for the Protection of Disproportionately Impacted Communities of the Board, which the Office may make because of the incident’s impacts on populations that are socially, medically, or economically vulnerable, as decided by the Office;

First: why does the NDRB even need an Office for the Protection of Disproportionately Impacted Communities? (Yes, it's created by this bill.)

Second: what are the definitions of "social, medical, and economic" vulnerability? (It's not defined in the bill, but it may be defined elsewhere in the US Code. I kind of doubt it, though.) Regardless--remember that, in the absence of statutory specificity, the judgment of the government official may be substituted for the legislative intent. And often is.*

Third: natural disasters are not terribly specific when it comes to which communities are affected, and what is their socioeconomic status. The only limit on the review, given the broad language (socially, medically, or economically vulnerable, as decided by the Office) would be the vote of the Board itself to accept the recommendation or not. Think of the public cost of denying such a recommendation: the accusations of bias against the "vulnerable" populations.

What kind of motivation would such an Office have for making a recommendation that the NDRB set aside the statutory criteria for investigating disasters and address an event that might otherwise not meet those criteria?

Fourth: now we get to the recommendation phase, which is a part of every review. Without constraints on what kind of recommendations are permitted, it's hard to say where we will wind up here.

Oh. I Simply Can't Resist One More​

7(a)(3D) a minimum of 2 members shall have demonstrated professional experience working with populations that have historically been more vulnerable to incidents because of their race, color, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status.

This can't get more political. Honestly, I hope I do not have to explain why this clause should simply be stricken from the bill. The 7-member Board constructed in this bill will simply not be able to handle the workload given its broad scope of responsibilities and requiring 2 of the 7 to have professional experience working with "historically vulnerable" populations will only make things worse.

I think I'll stop here, for now. Unless there is interest my yammering on and on here on ST, I will use DM from here.

---

* In OK 10A ("Childen's Code), part of the definition of "neglect" uses the terminology "adequate nurturance and affection". There is no legal definition for "adequate nurturance and affection", and its meaning can vary wildly from person to person. That means OK state officials can potentially take children from a home where there is legally no neglect at all. We are proposing an amendment to 10A to strike this fuzzy language and replace it with more legally-defined terms.

 

[Mike Smith]

Where to begin?

I am using the text of HR 6450 in what follows.

RECOMMENDATIONS​

The word "recommend" appears 66 times in the text if the bill. Now, I know the purpose of any review board is to make findings, and often, to make recommendations. So, I don't think it is possible to eliminate the "recommend" function, but the scope of "recommendations" must be narrowly constrained.

Consider the case of the recent Maui wildfire. From news reports I have seen, no one has been allowed inside La Haina since the fires. Insurance companies can't get in to do assessments, and as a result, banks are foreclosing on mortgages on homes that don't exist anymore and the residents have been unable to make payments because...well...they are homeless. But, I digress.

What if the NDRB were to recommend that rebuilding not resume until some threshold of wildfire prevention (TBD) be met?​

Remember, the composition of the NDRB includes those with "demonstrated knowledge in emergency management, fire management, emergency medical services, public health, physical sciences, social science, behavioral science, or architectural and engineering with post-disaster evaluation or building forensics expertise in their respective field."

• social science, behavioral science, public health: all fields of expertise that, really, are not "hard science" and have little-or-nothing to do with natural disaster warning or prevention. But these professionals can inject social engineering agendas into what should be formally a scientific exercise

Such a recommendation "not to rebuild until" could be used as a pretext for the state of Hawaii to declare that La Haina not be rebuilt: be rezoned as [parkland or non-residential, non-commercial, whatever]; or worse, the Federal government could simply seize the land. In the absence of such a recommendation by a NDRB, the political cost of the would be too high. But this kind of "recommendation" could be enough political cover to try it. Land has been seized by government for less. (It's kinda being seized right now in Maui, just by the banks with government assistance.)

Therefore: the kind of recommendations made by the NDRB should be narrowly constrained in the law to prevent this kind of overreach.

One More Example--More Specific and Less Speculative​

Section 4(b)(4) [the Board] may, by a majority vote, decide to review any natural hazard incident that occurs after the date of enactment of this Act upon recommendation by the Office for the Protection of Disproportionately Impacted Communities of the Board, which the Office may make because of the incident’s impacts on populations that are socially, medically, or economically vulnerable, as decided by the Office;

First: why does the NDRB even need an Office for the Protection of Disproportionately Impacted Communities? (Yes, it's created by this bill.)

Second: what are the definitions of "social, medical, and economic" vulnerability? (It's not defined in the bill, but it may be defined elsewhere in the US Code. I kind of doubt it, though.) Regardless--remember that, in the absence of statutory specificity, the judgment of the government official may be substituted for the legislative intent.

Third: natural disasters are not terribly specific when it comes to which communities are affected, and what is their socioeconomic status. The only limit on the review, given the broad language (socially, medically, or economically vulnerable, as decided by the Office) would be the vote of the Board itself to accept the recommendation or not. Think of the public cost of denying such a recommendation: the accusations of bias against the "vulnerable" populations. What kind of motivation would such an Office have for making a recommendation that the NDRB set aside the statutory criteria for investigating disasters and address an event that might otherwise not meet those criteria?

Fourth: now we get to the recommendation phase, which is apart of every review. Without constraints on what kind of recommendations are permitted, it's hard to say where we will wind up here.

Oh. I Simply Can't Resist One More​

7(a)(3D) a minimum of 2 members shall have demonstrated professional experience working with populations that have historically been more vulnerable to incidents because of their race, color, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status.

This can't get more political. Honestly, I hope I do not have to explain why this clause should simply be stricken from the bill. The 7-member Board constructed in this bill will simply not be able to handle the workload given its broad scope of responsibilities and requiring 2 of the 7 to have professional experience working with "historically vulnerable" populations will only make things worse.

I think I'll stop here, for now. Unless there is interest my yammering on and on on ST, I will use DM from here.

Remember that I have said, multiple times, I have proposed amendments. You are making the assumption no amendments will occur. However, it is a basic law of politics that you don't criticize people who are working on for your cause. That would include divulging the proposed amendments and the conversation surrounding them. Bad idea, at least at this time.

Addition: Remember, most amendments occur in committee hearings. That is before a final vote on the floors of the House and Senate. You can support the bill in principle and write your congresspeople to adopt the amendments you like. If a person does not like the final bill, you can then tell your congressional delegation the final bill does not have your support.

Second, with all due respect, I think you have a couple of things backward. I have written, over and over and over, that what is going on in Lahaina is a "national disgrace" (see nearby) for the reasons you cite and for reasons beyond. The goal, I believe, is local politicians are trying to tamper with evidence of their malfeasance. Keeping in mind this is occurring without a NDRB, I don't see how you come to the conclusion a NDRB will make it worse. By having the NDRB in charge of the site, it will make tampering less likely.

Have you ever heard the expression, "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good"? That is especially true in American politics today.

We can continue to screw the people in disaster areas (if Maui officials had learned from awful Boulder wildfires that occurred 18 months before), it is possible we wouldn't be in this situation today. If the NWS continues to have its tornado warnings of continue to decrease in accuracy and continues turns radars at 7-minute intervals in tornado situations, do you think things will be better in five years than they have been?

If you think the NDRB is a bad idea, that is your right.

 

[gdlewen]

Well, earlier I asked you to make sure the bill is appropriately amended to accomplish the goals I think we all have for the Board.

You then asked for examples of language in the bill that I think should be amended.

I gave you three.

I could give you more. I don't think that is necessary: I hope you are working on these and others.

But, now I am getting cranky. For that reason, I think it is best for me to stop participating in this particular discussion.

 

[Mike Smith]

Well, earlier I asked you to make sure the bill is appropriately amended to accomplish the goals I think we all have for the Board.

You then asked for examples of language in the bill that I think should be amended.

I gave you three.

I could give you more. I don't think that is necessary: I hope you are working on these and others.

But, now I am getting cranky. For that reason, I think it is best for me to stop participating in this particular discussion.

Geoff and Everyone:

I promise (a word I rarely use) that I am working on the issues you -- correctly -- just raised and more.

I wish I was 30 years younger and in better health so I could be the first Chair of the Board and set the tone and the nuances of operations about which you are concerned.

Please keep in mind that I am doing this, along with working with the NWS on its tornado warning and radar scan strategy issues, on my own time and on my own dollar. I take every word you write seriously. But, there is only so much time I can spend on all of this and if I unintentionally offend because a sentence is not well-phrased, I apologize.

So, here is an opportunity: If anyone wishes to offer suggestions (within reason) after reading either the Senate or House drafts, please do so. I will read them carefully and consider them.

Mike

 

[John Farley]

Don't y'all* slap me around for this, but if the administration does not change course this year (in a big, partisan, way), this bill as filed will just permit more government usurpation of states' and citizens' rights.

---

When I see this kind of obviously partisan, ideological messaging entering the discussion, it just turns me off to the whole thing. (And no doubt, many others.) What Mike has described is a bipartisan bill. Listening to all the discussion here, I do not really know to what extent, in practice, it would help in solving a problem that is very real. But I do know that as soon as you inject this kind of partisan, ideological rhetoric into the discussion, it will eliminate any chance of passing such a bill, because people of whatever viewpoint is perceived as being under attack will withdraw their support. There are other examples of political ideology getting injected into this discussion if you go back farther in this thread and others on the topic. If that continues, that will be the thing that kills any chance of legislation to address the problem of warnings not being disseminated in a timely, effective way and the tragic consequences that can lead to.

 

[Mark Gressman Jr]

While I do agree with a lot of the concerns @gdlewen has put forth, I think @John Farley is correct when it comes to the discussion of politics. I honestly don't think it can even be done anymore without becoming it's own monster. Too often, overblown emotional responses will derail whatever the initial discussion was based on to the detriment of the original point. I think this idea is a good one, and I appreciate the time several of you have dedicated to crafting thoughtful responses. It's that type of communication that makes a good idea a great one.

 

[gdlewen]

When I see this kind of obviously partisan, ideological messaging entering the discussion, it just turns me off to the whole thing. (And no doubt, many others.) *snip*

In re-reading this post by @John Farley, I realize he is right: there was a real danger that someone might read that (single) sentence and dismiss everything that followed. That is regrettable.

The admittedly-glib preamble, complete with a humorous footnote, was intended to ameliorate a stern warning: that H.R. 6450, in its current form, represents a threat to the liberty of the people. But, this is nothing more than a modern restatement, specific to the bill, of the 1787 Anti-Federalist position that a strong central government threatens tyranny and loss of liberty.

If anyone disagrees with that warning, congratulations! You have taken a Federalist position. Rather than be offended by that, I think you should be proud: you are in good company. Stand up and explain why you think H. R. 6450 is no threat, regardless of which political party is in power. Debates can only generate information.

Look: the debate over the proper role of government--whether concentrating power and authority in a strong central government is a good thing--is as old as government itself. It has divided this country since before our formation; indeed, throughout history that debate has divided every country and every people who have ever engaged in it.

The debate played a part in the destruction of the Weimar Republic, with the German Right-Wing hating Germany’s newly-formed constitutional republic, and wishing for a return to an authoritarian form of government. By contrast, the German Left-Wing embraced the Weimar Constitution and the new government it created.

H. R. 6450 will pass or it will not, and the Federalist Question will overshadow much of the debate over the bill. At least: I hope it will. Even though I think @Mike Smith will be successful and the bill will be suitably-amended, I think a debate over the proper role of government cannot be avoided.

I also hope I have made it clear that such debate is natural to self-government. But by all means let’s have that debate: rather than be offended by the contrarian point of view, take the opportunity to get your point across.

---

A final point: over a decade ago a NJ conservative realized that most of his neighbors in Mercer County might not know what it really means to be conservative. He proposed an op-ed to the Trenton Times in the hope of explaining one way of viewing conservatism. (It was also an indirect defense of President Obama, who was still being criticized for correctly pointing out that the U.S. Constitution is “a document of negative liberties.”)

I now worry that @John Farley was correct, and those who read the title, Liberty, Federalism, and the Conservative Statesman, simply turned the page and moved on.

 

[Mike Smith]

Hi Everyone,

I have a piece pertaining to the NDRB and wildfires.
Natural Disaster Review Board: Let's Get This Done!!

Mike

 

[Mike Smith]

I don't know how many are following the issues with the NWS's outages that began Sunday night. They are ongoing and resulting in products failing to be updated. Here is a brief summary.

• They lost 80% of their radars Monday morning.
• 100% of their satellite network went down as severe thunderstorms were developing in the Great Plains late Monday morning and into the afternoon.
• Their rainfall amount forecasts, important to farmers and river interests, hasn’t been updated in nearly 48 hours.
• Their rotation (tornadoes) and hail size products have been down since Sunday night.

And, all of this ongoing. A very brief explanation is below (from the College of DuPage weather department) is posted below.

A person who I don't know, so I cannot vouch for his expertise, claims online that NWS is using first-generation Oracle servers that no one knows how to maintain anymore. Again, I don't know if this is true but it wouldn't surprise me.

In addition,

• We had an unwarned strong tornado, with injuries, in Kansas yesterday morning. While this is not related to the radar outage, it is related to the NWS's rejection of gap-filler radars as the tornado occurred in the radar hole in eastern Kansas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/03/24/weather-radar-gaps-safety-nws/

We desperately need the Natural Disaster Review Board as it is clear the NWS needs outside assistance. There are bills in both houses of Congress to create one but they are going nowhere. I’m frightened another poorly warned tornado like Joplin (161 fatalities) is only a matter of time.

Please contact your congresspeople if you agree. There are bills before both houses of Congress to create the NDRB. They just need to have hearings and get them passed.


Mike

 

[Mark Gressman Jr]

Thanks for the update, as I was wondering why everything went down. I notice the same issue with 80% of the radars going down about 2 weeks ago, in the middle of the night as well. I thought maybe it was an issue on Radarscope's feed.

As for getting the bills passed, unfortunately, it's gonna take another Joplin to get things done. We need more than just the weather enthusiasts to make noise, and tragedy gets the average person's attention.

 

[Mike Smith]

This is a brief essay regarding an unwarned tornado in Kansas Tuesday morning. I think my conclusions will surprise everyone.

Tuesday's Missed Tornado Warning in Kansas

Greenwood County tornado damage, KWCH TV News It is not known which tornado produced this damage. We often discuss tornadoes that were impr...

www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com