Header
In Praise of Federal Executive Boards
 By Tom Shoop | Tuesday, January 15, 2008  |  10:32 AM

Federal Executive Boards across the country are getting the job done, the Office of Personnel Management says. Among the accomplishments highlighted in the FEB 2007 annual report:


  • Efforts by the Minnesota FEB to coordinate federal agencies' response to the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

  • Settlement of more than 565 cases through low-cost or no-cost mediation programs.

  • A program to provide free or reduced cost training to more than 23,000 federal employees saved agencies more than $6 million.


At their best, Brian Friel wrote in a recent Management Matters column, FEBs "create lateral connections through which information can flow across organizational boundaries, rather than forcing information up chains of command and then back down other chains." That means they can play an integral role in helping agencies collaborate -- both during normal operations and in times of crisis.

So if FEBs are so effective, why don't they get more support? Alyssa Rosenberg noted in a November piece in Government Executive, "though the Office of Personnel Management oversees FEBs, their staffs consist of employees detailed from offices in the area. That lack of consistent staffing, and the fact that there is no standard for determining the jurisdiction of FEBs based on the number of federal workers in a given area, can leave directors dangerously short-handed in a crisis." Kathrene L. Hansen, executive director of the Greater Los Angeles FEB, which covers 125,000 federal employees at 230 agencies, told Rosenberg she was serving as a one-person office at the time of last fall's wildfires in southern California, because the only other employee -- her secretary -- had recently resigned.

If FEBs can really help government be more effective, maybe it's time to give them a stable source of funding and adequate staff.



Comments


I agree also. In the 1980s I was active in the Atlanta FEB and had support for doing so from my boss. He was a leader who had spent time in the Field and was savvy of the FEB benefits.

In the 2000s I initiated a samll FEC (Council) in Tampa. The Director of my organization had never worked outside of DC and, even though I knew him personally and he was aware of what I had begun, there was never one word of encouragment or appreciation from him. Like many DC types his entire focus was on DC issues.

OPM needs to press this issue by seeing that the national leaders' contracts measure their support for field interagency cooperation including FEBs, FEAs and FECs.

My local "leader", an ATF SAC, was even less supportive. He made us feel quilty for working on FEC matters.

Robert Daugherty  | Thursday, January 17, 2008 |  09:10 AM


I agree. The FEB's are important to the greater coordination of Regional and Field Activities of the Government in thier repcetively geography area and provides the needed support and traning in support of all federal agencies. The Presidential Directive directed the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to arrange for the establishment of a Board of Federal Executives in each of the Commission's administrative regions, therefore funding should be obligated to each Board for closer coordination of Federal activities at the regional level. Maybe it's time to re-write PD-465.

AG  | Wednesday, January 16, 2008 |  12:47 AM



Post a comment



ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES