July 11-12, 2007 Meeting. #1 Communication and Collaboration (1) There is no local, state, federal partnership. (2) What partnership exists is becoming adversarial. Examples include the private National Response Plan rewrite and mischaracterization with the media of unspent homeland security funds. (3) Coordination between federal agencies is vital but it is not happening enough. The federal government may need a Cabinet level official(s) or lead agency charged with this responsibility. (4) Communication and collaboration is time consuming, but must be done and it’s more effectively done at the front end of planning processes. Stakeholders should be engaged early and often. (5) DHS collaboration must be with associations and not with individuals when seeking people to speak on behalf of a discipline. Associations must be able to appoint their own representatives to DHS working groups or meetings. Quality and quantity of representation is important. Development of the Target Capabilities List is an example - hundreds of people included in the process but the input did not meet quality standards for individual associations. When DHS requests representation, Associations will be responsive and pledge to work collaboratively. Stakeholders want the system to work. State and local governments are the ones who have to implement federal strategies, plans and programs. (6) Why doesn’t Office of State and Local Coordination function out of the Secretary’s office if it is importance to DHS? Sends negative message and this is one of the reasons that communication and collaboration isn’t working right now. There is no single coordination point within DHS for state and local stakeholders that can reach back within the agency on their behalf. (7) The Consortium has the ability to easily and effectively provide input to DHS. (8) Performance measurement for collaboration is different for DHS than associations. DHS looks at quantity and stakeholders look at quality. (9) The relationship with DHS is getting worse, not better (10) The priority issues identified by the Consortium are important for this and the next Administration. They will not go away. Could be the basis for a National Strategy the Consortium should develop and deliver in a non-partisan approach. (11) Federal agencies are not communicating or working together which leads to a fragmented national approach. #2 National Guard Capabilities and Use of the Military (1) White House is opposed to the repeal of the Insurrection Act amendments. (2) Many Consortium members strongly support the repeal and want the governors’ authority over use of the National Guard reinstated. (3) DHS needs to become better informed on National Guard issues. DHS should consider this an issue of importance to them because it’s much broader than they have indicated in their response letter to the Consortium priority issues. (4) NHSC wants collaboration on important national issues that can make the emergency response system better. Use of the military is of interest to Consortium members and we will monitor. We expect to be engaged on this issue. #3 Intelligence and Information Sharing (1) Private sector still not recognized. (2) Information stovepipes exist for private sector engagement and information sharing. (3) A true national strategy is lacking and a policy level discussion is needed. Need to focus on system design and information gathering/sharing process. What does DHS know and who else needs to know it, and what’s the process for sharing that information? (4) Regulatory and policy issues are not being addressed on a national level. (5) More work to be done on actionable intelligence being given to state/local governments. (6) Unsure of what is being done with HSIN/HSDN and where it’s going. (7) Security clearances are road blocks, but can be solved at little cost. #4 Mutual Aid/Resource Typing/Credentialing and Disaster Response (1) DHS continues to focus on their defined “regions” and not “networks” that may be more effective for state and local governments. Regions are not necessarily bound by geography or political boundaries. “Networks” cross traditional boundaries. (2) DHS shouldn’t constrain initiatives because of administrative rules or grant guidance. (3) FEMA needs a private sector office/liaison. Policy and program focus for private sector is missing. Private sector owns most of the nation’s infrastructure so they must be included. Major industry is also important. (4) DHS/FEMA should financially support state and local governments in the identification and packaging of mutual aid response assets. (5) Federal agencies are not coordinating on credentialing. (6) All partner organizations/associations need to be included in the resource typing and credentialing process. (7) These issues go beyond FEMA and include all federal agencies involved. #5 Surge Capacity (1) There is little activity to address this issue at the federal level. Medical surge is a huge problem for the nation. (2) Consortium can’t give a “pass” to DHS to defer the issue to other agencies or to state/local government. There is NO surge capacity at state/local level. (3) Consortium needs to look beyond DHS to address this issue. We can work together on this issue and the Consortium can bring all partners together to address. No single entity can solve on their own. #6 Interoperability (1) Good work being done; however, states and locals are not exactly sure what we’re trying to achieve. (2) All levels of government need to agree where we’re going and what success means. What does interoperability look like nationally? (3) Greater collaboration is needed to address human aspect of interoperability. Technology solutions can’t solve everything. (4) Adjustments need to be made in the way we think and talk about interoperability. There needs to be the desire to have the right people communicating followed by the ability to make it happen. (5) Planning for the future and additional spectrum allocation is key. Consortium members support additional spectrum for public safety. This is an issue of near term relevance. (6) Unsure of what the $1B grant program is supposed to achieve. Requirements and expectations not known. (7) Public safety communications needs to be a priority for the nation. #7 Self Determination/All Hazards (1) DHS must adopt an all hazards approach and maintain a balance between terrorism and natural disaster preparedness. (2) Federal government should set broad goals and let states/locals determine the path to achieve the goals. #8 Implementation of FEMA Reform Act (1) NHSC is monitoring implementation. Differing disciplines have differing concerns. (2) No Congressional oversight and DHS is not implementing according to the law. Examples: TSA grants, location of Office of State and Local Coordination. (3) Customers not included in planning for implementation, but should have been to help ensure the way changes are implemented is beneficial to the customer. #9 Real ID/Border Security/Immigration (1) Implementation dates are difficult to meet. (2) DHS takes up all the time coming up with rules and then states have little time to implement. (3) These issues represent significant long-term financial commitments by states. Customer service is a concern. Example: passports backlog. (4) DHS is not helping with the way they are putting forth administrative rules. They are hurting and not helping states. #10 Five-Year Strategic Plan (1) DHS needs a multi-year strategic plan, as is being required of the states. (2) “Long Term Fiscal Planning for Sustainable Programs” (3) Example: DoD has a 5 year budget cycle and DHS does not. This is what is needed”. (NHSC, National Homeland Security Consortium Meeting, July 11-12, 2007, pp. 1-4)