Political and legal principles provide that the state, in general, is mandated to protect the general rights of the inhabitants living in their territory. That is to say that those that operate with powers bestowed upon the state should implement this inherent principle. Such elements of the state include government agencies and departments like the US Forest Service. The case of the US Forest Service, particularly with their attempts to establish a shift on their major operations from top-down to bottom-up, embraces this noble intention of providing better service to the US public. However, issues have risen with reference to the said body’s freedom to deal with their operations, specifically in terms of budgetary concerns. The following discussions shall provide an analysis on the case.
The US Forest Service is mandated initially to guarantee the lush production of timber and water in the forest areas of the United States. Its mandate broadened as the Congress ratified a decree providing the Forest Service the detail to protect the wildlife and wilderness so as to not only protect the ecological component of the said areas but also to provide the public with facilities that could cater to recreational activities. However, like any other endeavour for development and advancement, the US Forest Service encountered numerous roadblocks and detours to the realisation of its goals. This is particularly seen in the implementation of their pilot project, The Big Bucket.
In this project, the success is placed highly on the capacity to provide flexible budgetary manoeuvrings on the part of the department. To this end, the legislature did provide them the slack that they needed. These are shown by the provision of certain relief on bureaucratic requirements, removal of personnel limits, and relaxing of the restrictions on the procurement process. All these elements show perfect signs of flexibility, and the US Forest Service is legally mandated to implement it. However, there are certain potholes that the said government body encountered.
The issue in this case is whether it is appropriate for the US Forest Service to acquire greater freedom in moving budget categories. The answer is yes, but only subject to a certain degree. One must realise that the US Forest Service is still covered by the governing powers of the state, which also means that they are bound by the hierarchy and the functions of other governmental organisations that directly and indirectly relates to them. It appears that the transparency involving the movement of budget in the said organisation is either too loose or has totally misconstrued the suggestion to be “creative.” Like any arm of the government, the US Forest Service is not exempt from any rule or legislation. Despite having a personality of a state agency, the US Forest Service has to subject itself on the terms, conditions and principles provided by the legislature. The detected movement of the wilderness management budget is a clear and present sign that the US Forest Service is in itself lost in the wilderness. Or possibly, it intended itself to get lost.
In the early part of the 1990s, controversy on the wilderness management budget is at its height. The situation emerged when environmental groups kept urging the US Forest Service to veer away from their mediocre performance in the two decades of their existence. The US Forest Service claimed that their meagre budget for wilderness management is the culprit of this limitation. It was later on discovered that the wilderness management budget is partially spent on actual wilderness management. The bulk of the said finances are allocated to numerous other functions of the government office. It appears that the meagre budget of the organisation is actually their fault.
Personally, this is the exact vestige of bad governance. A budget provided by a government agency, like that of the US Forest Service, is approved by the state in the accepted belief that the funds given that agency will directly benefit the public through that specific action on which that fund seeks to fulfil. It is the height of deception, not only on the part of the government but also to the taxpayers, that specifically allocated funds are placed elsewhere. At some point, one could not help but deem whether this is what the US Forest Service deems as being “creative” in their operations. This is not at all creative in every sense of the word. At the most, the actions shown in the case study are no less than mere incompetence.
The operative word in this discussion therefore is political will. If these bureaucratic elements of the state have this, then they will do their jobs well despite limits on their budget. There are at least a couple of things that they could do if they are indeed inclined towards the realisation of their respective mandate. Given the situation of the US Forest Reserve, they would have to make reductions on their organisation and streamline their processes to meet the best possible outcome based on the provided budget by the government. The other option is to find ways to actually create added resources provided that it is within the confines of the law.
With reference to the work of Kaufman, it appears that this set of inefficiencies seen in the case of the US Forest Service is of their own making. They are at fault due to their disregard of the prescribed procedure. The inability to provide the public the basic services under their mandate is caused by numerous excuses highlighted by insufficient funds on which they themselves fail to address. The government has given the said body a considerable level of generosity as seen in the discussions above. It would not hurt if the US Forest Service would take the initiative to address their own issues without compromising their status as an arm of the government. More importantly, they should do it without compromising the sacred concepts of public trust. Anything short of such a requirement is a betrayal of not only their mandate as an arm of the state but to the public as well.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment