Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[Randy Zipser]

I hope you get the credit you deserve for having advocated this for so long!

The American Enterprise Institute’s Roger Pielke Jr. has suggested that Congress could establish a board modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate mistakes made during natural disasters to prevent their recurrence.

Great news, Mike. This is a wonderful development, with Pielke, Schumer, and now Neil Jacobs getting onboard! Let's keep up the fight until the NDRB becomes a reality.

 

[Randy Zipser]

James, as of retirement, I no longer take the WSJ. Could you forward the article to me? [email protected]. Thank you.

Mike, I usually get my paper copy of the WSJ by USPS a day late, so should get this article tomorrow. If so, I'll clip it and post it here.

 

[Mike Smith]

Let's keep up the fight until the NDRB becomes a reality.

It is important to do this right -- "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is the wrong type of appointee for the Board.

It is critical to make sure, since we have the U.S. Climate Assessment, that the Board is forbidden to get into global warming. That should be part of its charter.

I lay out the case for the Board here: The Texas Flash Floods I know everyone is busy but it would great if you took time to read it, I think it would be helpful. Then, please contact your congresspeople -- with a link to the Pielke piece -- and endorse the idea.

As James points out, it is beyond awful (stomach-turning, in fact) that it look the horrific Texas flash floods to get this moving. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain the parents and everyone concerned is feeling.

The EF-5 1957 Ruskin Heights Tornado caused the late Les Lemon (a tornado researcher who measurably advanced our ability to warn of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms), Dennis Smith (of The Weather Channel, and no relation to me), and I to become meteorologists. The 44 people died in that tornado certainly did not die in vain as thousands of lives have been saved.

In 1987, as similar flash flood killed 10 young men at a church camp on the South Fork of the Guadalupe. Nothing was done and here we are. We must insure that this horrific event in Texas leads to an outcome where this never happens again!

Thank you.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

It is important to do this right -- "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is the wrong type of appointee for the Board.

Truer words have never been spoken. I don't know if it's possible but putting together a group of non-partisan members who's more about action than ideological stances would go a long ways in effectiveness. Also, any board that would have some form of power to implement changes instead of having only the ability to make informed suggestions would lend it credibility. I'm a bit of a cynic but never underestimate the ability for someone in power to take a great idea and screw it up. Either way though it's a step in the right direction.

But for now, congrats Mike on the momentum. Hopefully it picks up steam and is implemented soon.

 

[Randy Zipser]

It is important to do this right -- "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is the wrong type of appointee for the Board.

It is critical to make sure, since we have the U.S. Climate Assessment, that the Board is forbidden to get into global warming. That should be part of its charter.

I agree, Mike. Thanks for the Pielke article above.

As a technical point, I agree that both science and politics should stay out of the NDRB's core tasks. Thus, you are right: the "global warming" debate has no place in this Board's Charter.

However, as a finer point: As you envision it, would the NDRB be an "actionary" or an "investigative" entity, or perhaps a combination of both? This is a very important distinction that could be exploited constructively to appeal to politicians to make it a reality.

Here's my thinking on this. The NTSB is almost exclusively an investigative body. But, the NTSB's mission is relatively limited in scope because there are only four root causes of every plane crash: pilot error, ATC error, mechanical failure, and weather. Some crashes may even be the result of a combination of these root causes.

However, when it comes to natural disasters, there can be a myriad of causes and ways in which human beings can "get in the way" of them and even make them worse than would otherwise have occurred naturally. So, if the central purpose for creating a NDRB is to determine (and learn from) in each case what mistakes were made, what could have been done better to save lives/property, and what man-made improvements/remedies should be made to prevent such deadly consequences in similar future disasters (much like the NTSB's mission), then the core mission of the NDRB should be investigative in nature.

On the other hand, if there is a possible way to to get a team of skilled disaster-assessment specialists into position to take decisive action in the immediate aftermath of an unfolding disaster, even more lives might be able to be saved because critical rescue/recovery/relief services would take effect faster because the usual "red-tape" between all coordinating interests would be circumvented. Call it the "taking front-end action to quickly mitigate human suffering" approach. The NDRB's role would be only as the central clearinghouse for action coordination. This would involve making a skilled field-assessment, setting forth a well-thought-out plan or strategy, immediately lining-up and sending-in all necessary personnel (whether federal, state, local, private, non-profit, or military)--all within some reasonable time frame, say 72 hours, following the end of the disaster. The Board itself would not actually commit personnel to the disaster site (state and local governments will very likely do this on their own independently), but would oversee how progress is being made toward providing whatever relief efforts are required and to monitor and gather important data/information along the way. These data will then be studied and within a few months, the NDRB would issue a final report detailing results and making recomendations for what changes could/should be made to save lives and/or property. This approach would be primarily actionary, but investigative (on the "back end"), as well.

In the discussion above, Mike, please understand that I'm not in any way suggesting any change(s) whatsoever to your vision for what a NDRB should look like and do! I hope it is even named after you, in fact!!!

I'm just curious about your thoughts on the above...

 

[Mike Smith]

I don't know if it's possible but putting together a group of non-partisan members who's more about action than ideological stances would go a long ways in effectiveness.

I am less worried about ideological bias than I am whether people willing to put it aside. I'm also worried about "sacred cows." For example, I heard from some of the usual suspects Saturday afternoon and Sunday criticizing me because I was declaring the NWS's FFW performance "subpar" (note: certainly not "terrible" or a "failure"). I hear from these same people every time I do an evaluation and to them -- evidently -- the NWS is a sainted organization that can do no wrong. It is that attitude that has, until now, prevented movement with the NDRB and has allowed the NWS to create 3 types of FFW, 3 types of SVR and 3 types of TOR, even though we do not have the consistent skill do issue these in an accurate and timely manner, plus the public doesn't understand them.

The NTSB's vetting process seems to work pretty well. Assuming we can get Congress to move, then I would hope the NDRB would be able to borrow it. Keep in mind that, with the exception of the "set up" period, I am not interested in serving on the Board.

However, as a finer point: As you envision it, would the NDRB be an "actionary" or an "investigative" entity, or perhaps a combination of both? This is a very important distinction that could be exploited constructively to appeal to politicians to make it a reality.

Jury out on this one. I have recommended to various officials the role of FEMA to change into an immediate "evaluation" agency (as you mention) and then, primarily, a logistics/coordination agency. The "boots on the ground" part of their mission, which they have never performed well, would you away in favor of state and local people. If FEMA has that mission then NDRB doesn't need it. That would be my preference.

The NTSB has worked well as "recommendation" board. They can subpoena but have no law enforcement power. Their findings cannot be used in litigation. I am hopeful this model will work for the NDRB. If not, we can go back to Congress and change it.

There is a huge advantage to a "recommendation" agency. Politicians and agencies hate accountability. So, Sunday when reports were dogging Governor Abbott, he could have said, "I don't have anything to say until the National Disaster Review Board publishes its findings." Instead, Monday, he made his awful comments about "football" and "losers." See: Catching Up on Comments and Questions About the Texas Floods - Updated 8:45pm Tuesday

I may be too much of an optimist but this is a (rare) opportunity for the Administration and Congress to do the right thing together. None of them wish to delve into the day-to-day of the disaster alerting and response process and what might need to be changed. I had a congressional staffer ~6 months ago tell me, "We don't know who to believe!" in frustration. If I, or someone, can sit down with both sides, pat them on the back with what they have done with the NTSB, we might pull off a second miracle pertaining to the NDRB.

Again, please, call or write your congresspeople. For Texans, here's Cruz's web site: Write to Ted | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas Just write a brief note saying, we can't ever have this happen again. So, please help create a National Disaster Review Board modeled after the NTSB.

 

[JamesCaruso]

would the NDRB be an "actionary" or an "investigative" entity, or perhaps a combination of both?

I’m certainly no expert, but I see it as being investigative only. The NTSB model being sought here is investigative. We already have FEMA as an “actionary,” notwithstanding their level of success or lack thereof.

If the NDRB had any immediate action-oriented role, they would affect the ultimate outcome of the disaster, and would no longer be independent enough to investigate it. It would be like the NTSB being involved in responding to a plane after an emergency crash landing on the runway and helping passengers evacuate. Or a reporter getting himself involved in the story.

 

[Mike Smith]

, they would affect the ultimate outcome of the disaster, and would no longer be independent enough to investigate

Great point hadn't thought of. Thanks!

 

[JamesCaruso]

James, as of retirement, I no longer take the WSJ. Could you forward the article to me? [email protected]. Thank you.

Just sent a PDF copy to your email Mike!

 

[Mike Smith]

Just sent a PDF copy to your email Mike!

Got it!! Thanks so much!!!

 

[Randy Zipser]

I’m certainly no expert, but I see it as being investigative only. The NTSB model being sought here is investigative. We already have FEMA as an “actionary,” notwithstanding their level of success or lack thereof.

If the NDRB had any immediate action-oriented role, they would affect the ultimate outcome of the disaster, and would no longer be independent enough to investigate it. It would be like the NTSB being involved in responding to a plane after an emergency crash landing on the runway and helping passengers evacuate. Or a reporter getting himself involved in the story.

All great points, James. I had also "weighed" that possibility when posing the question.

As I see it, it comes down to what would be most beneficial to our society: to try a more effective way to mitigate the worst outcome from the disaster or reacting to whatever outcome Nature has in store and accepting that human intervention could not have significantly altered the outcome.

Human beings, error-prone as we are, can screw things up royally even when we have the best intentions to help "fix" things over which we have no control, like everything that naturally occurs in our atmosphere. So, maybe better to leave well-enough alone when it comes to natural disasters!

On the other hand, will the pols in DC see the new NDRB as "just another post-disaster investigation board," and without serious consideration dismiss it, especially in today's "immediate-answer" political climate? It would be ashamed to have this opportunity lost for that reason! That's why I entertained the idea of trying to come up with another reason to convince the political establishment that a new NDRB is absolutely necessary: it can replace a failing FEMA as well as fix what does not work now. In other words, fix several existing problems with one practical solution! BTW, you are correct in observing that for an "actionary" Board to really work, it would have to be candid enough to admit failure when its action plan proved ineffective; admitting failure publicly, like Mike said, is not something public officials are likely to do, but more likely, just "sweep it under the rug"...

In any case, it looks like some good progress is being made in past few days, so let's hope that continues...

 

[Randy Zipser]

Instead, Monday, he made his awful comments about "football" and "losers." See: Catching Up on Comments and Questions About the Texas Floods - Updated 8:45pm Tuesday

Totally agree, Mike. I happened to see that remark on CNN, I believe it was, and I thought it was totally inappropriate and thoughtless!

 

[JamesCaruso]

for an "actionary" Board to really work, it would have to be candid enough to admit failure when its action plan proved ineffective; admitting failure publicly, like Mike said, is not something public officials are likely to do, but more likely, just "sweep it under the rug".

I think that’s how the NWS self-assessments went off the rails…

 

[Randy Zipser]

I think that’s how the NWS self-assessments went off the rails…

Yeah, and that observation is not limited only to the NWS.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency oversees FEMA, when asked yesterday by a reporter about a "technical" rule that may have temporarily slowed down DHS assistance funds to the State of Texas, completely sidestepped the details of the question and gave the usual generic, self-praising B.S. answer something to the effect [I'm paraphrasing): "DHS was doing everything possible and that Texas was very grateful for all of DHS' help." It's sad that self-appraisal of performance is always exaggerated on the positive side to cover up for mediocre- or lousy-performance reality. But, at least in the case of the NWS, a lot of jobs are at stake all over the country, so putting a positive spin on self-assessments is crucial for job and agency survival. When a mistake is discovered, however, public officials should simply admit it, correct it, learn from it...and move on. The (voting) public is more likely to forget and forgive truthful answers than deflected ones (as a general rule).

 

[John Farley]

It is critical to make sure, since we have the U.S. Climate Assessment, that the Board is forbidden to get into global warming. That should be part of its charter.

Mike, while I am in agreement with the vast majority of what you have said and written about the need for a NDRB, I strongly disagree with this. If a review board thinks that global warming was a factor in a disaster, they should be able to say so, just as with anything else they think was a factor. Nothing should be off limits.