This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University address the structural , operational and programmatic issues facing EM at this time. But no one wants to talk about this. Mitigation has again become the neglected phase in the four phases of EM. Programs and funds have been cut and the focus of EM has been placed almost exclusively on response and recovery. If we do not invest in reducing the impacts of future disasters we are dooming our system to failure as Katrina clearly illustrated. Mitigation is not part of the current EM discussion and must be. 3-6 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concur ~ 3-9 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhat Concur ~ 3-10 II I think it is a fundamental error to assume that the principles of emergency management will be different at various levels of government. If we are in fact discussing fundamental principles, they should be the same for all emergency managers. The actual tasks or the emphasis on one principle over another may vary but the principles remain constant. Consider the various levels of the military the complexities are different but the principles of war (e.g. mass, economy of force, unity of command, etc.) do not change. When considering different levels of government, it seems to me that there is a lack of definition of what each is responsible for in the wake of the current focus on catastrophic events. To ask a local government to plan for catastrophe is a bit counter-intuitive. By definition, local resources are overwhelmed in a disaster. However, asking them to plan to assist other jurisdictions as host communities or through mutual aid under a coordinated statewide strategy would make good sense but few states are grasping this concept and certainly DHS has not. 3-7 Do Not Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do Not Concur ~ 3-9 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhat Concur ~ Agree with paragraph 1. Paragraph 2: Not clear and do not agree with what I think author means. 3-10 II People able to work with people. EM should move into being supporting coalition building and consensus when not in disaster mode. These skills are missing because we still operate from a "command and control" model. Community resilience and mitigation are core concepts that have dropped from the federal agenda so even if a local wants to engage in them they will label it "education" or something else. This is only an example of how hard it is for those practitioners wanting to be proactive to do so if an issue or topic is not on the federal agenda.
Issues, Principles And Attitudes Oh My! Examining Perceptions from Select Academics, Practitioners And Consultants on the Subject of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University Honestly none of this matters if EMs are bound to the direction and whims of political administrators without a true understanding of the profession. All new mayors, governors, etc should be required to attend a specifically designed course at EMI so they know how to support their EM doing what is needed for the public in times of emergency as well as during times when planning can take place. 3-8 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concur ~ 3-9 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhat Concur ~ 3-10 II The biggest concern I find is defining who should be doing emergency management? Is it a profession or a skill held by any profession? That is a core issue right now. Ten years ago I warned a colleague in the EMS field that after the millennium we would see fewer emergency management professionals in government as stand-alone positions. Much of the work would be rolled under other disciplines such as fire, law, EMS, public works and other departments. He scoffed then, but not now. Where once an emergency management professional had access to elected officials, which is critical, now they are buried under piles of bureaucracies that restrict or prevent access. This widening gap of contact has created a silo environment in which the facts about risk and the impacts of public decisions are increasingly separated so that the warnings about growth and development are left unchallenged when they clearly are placing the public in harms way. This is a very important issue. Every time I bring it up to a group of emergency managers they agree, but not if the "oversight" organization is in the room. 3-9 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do Not Concur ~ 3-10 II Lack of fundamental understanding and leadership for EM at the federal level (DHS particularly, but EPA too). Inadequate leadership and willingness to accept responsibility for EM at the state level. Governors not adequately involved; state EM directors not sufficiently empowered. Local officials and citizens have become passive; sense of entitlement to support and money, especially from the federal government needs to be stemmed and reversed. EM Deficiencies are part of general problems regarding U.S. attitude toward planning and assuming greater responsibility for environmental degradation. Large scale natural hazards remain a fundamental concern in the U.S., but not at DHS. 3-10 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- The American