Questions on when information was shared and with whom draw from the 9/11 Commission recommendations on how U.S. intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement agencies should coordinate in the 21st-century security environment. While a thorough review of the bombings is important for elevating the U.S. security posture and ensuring that “lessons learned” are actually “learned,” Congress continues to ignore the only remaining unaddressed recommendation from the Commission – that is, “create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.”

As I (and others) have written before, in an era when all federal agencies are being forced to cut programs and spending, it would behoove Congress to lead by example and consolidate its oversight, per the Commission’s advice offered nearly a decade ago.

Adding to our understanding of how the congressional oversight dysfunctionality has real-world impacts, the Center for Public Integrity published an in-depth review of the challenges wrought by duplicative congressional oversight, entitled, “Is Congress failing on Homeland Security oversight?“

This report is well written, thoroughly researched and compelling in its message. Protecting congressional jurisdiction “rice bowls” seems to be the driving force behind inaction, and the Center’s report highlights the history of how this protection racket survives. The report is well-worth reading for this reason alone.

Yet, the report is also worth a review because it shows (in a very diplomatic way) how a narrow-minded, self-centered Chairman like John Mica can talk about his alleged transportation expertise. In my view, it is more Mr. Mica’s loud temper-tantrums that have stymied the 9/11 Commission recommendation on eliminating jurisdictional overlaps. But whatever the cause, the problem will not be fixed any time soon, the CPI report concludes.

Congress needs to heal itself from the debilitating “disease” of arrogance and hubris. Until such time as it can do that, we are all required to endure ineffective congressional oversight and duplicative DHS briefings.

In an era of diminished budgets and vanishing security grants, a recent break in at the Carters Lake Water Treatment Plant in Georgia highlights how the federal government is leaving small water systems, and the communities they serve, hanging in the wind.

As indicated by the plant’s General Manager, someone turned the system’s chlorine feed “too high” and set the fluoride feed “too low.” While the affected water never left the plant, the incident certainly highlights the very real potential to harm people by tampering with their water.

Small systems often serve rural, economically depressed areas. They don’t have enough ratepayers to cover the cost of doing business, let alone the costs associated with upgrading their security systems. And with no tax base, an inability to issue bonds, and the disappearance of funding from sources like the DHS Buffer Zone Protection Program, small systems are left to fend for themselves and hope for the best.

How sophisticated was the break in at Carters Lake Plant? The facility’s chlorine equipment is in a locked room, while the fluoride feed is not, and since there are no video cameras, it didn’t exactly take a criminal mastermind to pull off the job.

Now, I’m not suggesting DHS throw obscene amounts of money at rural water systems, but I would argue that these systems can make major strides with small amounts of money. Helping pay for new locks and some video feeds shouldn’t be seen as something that’s going to financially ruin our federal partners. Providing such assistance would go a long way towards protecting the many communities served by systems, such as the Carters Lake Plant.

According to the General Manager, the plant will be back in operation by the end of the week, though without any resources to shore up its security posture, there’s no telling how long it will be up and running before it gets hit again.

The Center for International Policy recently released a report entitled “Drones Over the Homeland,” which provides an excellent analysis of CBP’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program from inception to the present.

The report, written by Tom Barry, is well-worth reading, even if it leaves out a direct reference to a government-funded Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) that largely confirms Barry’s findings. The AoA has been cited in several GAO reports about border security technology deployments and also questions the cost-effectiveness of flying Predator UAVs for border surveillance purposes.

The Center for International Policy report is a bit “heavy” in its effort to tie political contributions to UAV procurements and policy. Yet, the report adds significantly to the debate Congress should be having, though to date, it is not. I hope congressional appropriators will take note.

Our friend Bob Namejko, one of the more helpful people in the Office of the Chief Procurement at DHS, sent a “heads-up” notice that ought to get more than passing interest from the private sector. Yesterday, DHS posted a Request for Information (RFI) on FedBizOpps (solicitation number RUPC-13-APFS) seeking comments and suggestions on the data fields in the DHS Acquisition Planning Forecast System (APFS).

The RFI’s purpose is to obtain industry input on the extent to which DHS will collect and display (in a comprehensive manner) data considered useful and pertinent to industry business opportunity forecasting efforts. The APFS is described as:

A DHS-wide acquisition portal which captures and consolidates the DHS forecast of planned contract requirements valued at $150,000.00 or greater, and is used to provide industry with a forecast of planned contract opportunities. The APFS system is available to the general public via web-access, and interested businesses may search the system based on a variety of search criteria for requirements that match their corporate capabilities, and thereby position themselves to respond to potential future solicitations.

DHS officials have repeatedly promised to update the APFS and make it more user-friendly, and this RFI is evidence they are sticking to their promise. If the system is revised and kept up to date, it will help the DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) provide more accurate and timely information. thereby helping facilitate private industry planning and business opportunity forecasting activities.

Industry comments should be submitted in accordance with the RFI instructions. Check out FedBizOps for information on where to send input by May 1, 2013.

Read more @ FierceHomelandSecurity

If you want to have a successful relationship in anything, communications are critical. Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) begins every congressional hearing by asking how long people have been married and their thoughts on the secret to a long marriage. Carper always answers his own question, naming “communication and compromise,” adding that these traits are how the federal government ought to run.

Weighing Carper’s metrics for a successful relationship, however, I have to wonder if DHS really cares about its relationships with anyone. The department’s communications with just about everyone are lacking of late. This is seen most clearly in the way DHS recently rolled out its 2014 budget submission.

There was no public event or announcement explaining its funding priorities. There was no conference call with stakeholders around the country to let them know what the budget holds for them, nor outreach to reporters to describe the department’s investments. It seems like DHS has little-to-no interest in telling the public how they want to spend taxpayer dollars.

What they did do was attempt to post the budget materials on the DHS website, along with the customary background materials. Yet, instead of posting this year’s submission, they inadvertently posted last year’s budget. It was not until DHS received a few calls did they remedy their error.

For many people, my concern over DHS outreach and communication could be branded as sour grapes, given that I’m a former political appointee from the previous administration. I suppose that is a fair label in some respects, but as someone who was fortunate to be a part of the department’s formation and helped establish critical relationships between DHS and the private sector, professional associations, other government agencies, educational institutions, etc., what we see happening today is deeply troubling.

Aside from the occasional photo op, the customary speech laden with rhetoric about “our partners in the private sector, blah, blah, blah,” and of course the obligatory platitudes that we see in news releases and congressional testimony, the level of engagement with people outside the red brick walls of the DHS complex is anemic, if not nearly extinct.

Under the auspices of the “efficiency initiative,” which Secretary Napolitano instituted shortly after her arrival and whose purpose was to save money as well as streamline communications, I guess you could say it’s been a miraculous success. Communications are certainly streamlined when no one is talking (or is afraid to talk), and it saves money when you make it absolutely cumbersome and bureaucratic to go outside of the Nebraska Avenue Complex to attend meetings, workshops, or other professional gatherings of people who are knowledgeable and interested in what DHS does.

As a former leader of a professional association of homeland security professionals (Chair of NDIA’s Homeland Security Division), I can personally attest to how difficult the department makes it for groups to have DHS’ principals and personnel engage in conferences, workshops or meetings.

After dealing with the customary paperwork detailing an event’s who, where, what and why, there are usually questions regarding the value your group would provide should DHS allow a principal to speak or attend the event. Over the past several years, major conferences, workshops and publicly available programs (such as those put on by NDIA, AFCEA, SARMA) that assemble knowledgeable and diverse stakeholders have found their programs full of holes because DHS pulled its people from agendas, as well as the audience. To overcome the situation, a number of DHS employees have started to use personal leave to speak, participate or attend such programs.

Don’t you find it interesting that we trust many of these people with top secret security clearances, charging them with keeping the homeland safe, yet, they can’t be trusted to decide what is a good use of their time – like attending or participating in a program?

By any measure, “efficiency” does not describe such a culture or operating environment. This is why I find the events of the past week and the budget rollout so disappointing. I’ve learned after many years that if you do not make the effort to speak up for what you believe or what you want to do, others will fill the vacuum with want they want. That information could be correct, it could be misleading, it could be outright fantasy, but it will be the thoughts and words that fill the void you left open.

That is what DHS is doing right now when it comes to communications. Instead of having stakeholder groups of every political stripe and profession engaged and informed, they remain on the sidelines – uninformed and unengaged. That is no way to sell a budget, or anything else for that matter.

You can have all of the prepared statements for Congressional hearings, the press releases that detail everything in nicely aligned charts, the infographic and Facebook post spicing things up and showing you’re hip to the new stuff, but if you don’t speak to the stakeholders, no one is going to speak up for you.

The conversations and relationships DHS used to have with stakeholder groups in Washington and around the country appear to be a part of its past. They are certainly not a priority for its present or future. I don’t think a day goes by that I don’t hear this type of complaint from groups I’ve been a part of for years, as well as from reporters, congressional staff, and even current and former DHS employees.

I never thought a conversation, let alone proactive communications with people who could be supporters and champions for your interests, could be deemed so irrelevant that you just don’t see it as a valuable priority. That even goes for communicating with your critics who, from time to time, may actually bring new perspectives as well as a few ideas worth considering.

While I certainly think the people in the department’s leadership care about the mission they serve, I just wish they had more appreciation and respect for the people outside their walls and the importance of talking with us in a way that befits the nation and the ideals and discourse it stands for. Right now, they don’t.