Due 5/9

Disasters and Intergovernmental Relations:

Part IV

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM Dr. Harry McGinnis

Role of the Local “First Responders” • Simply because of proximity to disasters, local emergency

response agencies are almost always the first “official” responders on the scene.

• Because of the availability of federal funding for “first responders,” there has been some debate over who is a first responder.

• Generally, first responders are considered to be firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel.

• Other responders include hospital medical personnel, hazardous materials responders, and military personnel.

• Most “first responders,” however, are neighbors, relatives, and friends. They conduct search and rescue, provide first aid, provide emergency shelter and food, and even may fight fires.

• For that reason, state and local emergency management programs, as well as FEMA, are focusing more on preparing communities to respond to their own emergencies before help arrives.

• Because local governments are legally part of state government and local officials have only the authority and resources permitted under state statute and constitutional provisions, state officials are ultimately responsible for protecting the health and safety of the residents of local communities.

• However, it is very unusual for state officials to preempt the authority of local officials, unless there is gross negligence or corruption, or unless public safety is threatened to a degree that cannot be tolerated.

Local officials have the legal responsibility to prepare for and respond to emergencies within their communities. That legal responsibility is based

upon the delegation of authority by state officials in municipal incorporation laws, city charters, and other statutes and constitutional

provisions that set up the local governments and spelled out their powers and authority.

It may be hours or even days before state and federal emergency responders arrive on the scene, unless the disaster occurs in a major metropolitan area

that affords quick access by air or water, near a major military or other government facility with emergency response capabilities, or near a

staging area for emergency response.

• FEMA and other federal agencies are stockpiling emergency materials, e.g., food, water, and tents, in various locations around the U.S. to speed the federal response to disasters.

• In the day-to-day operations of government, local officials are those principally responsible for protecting public health and safety.

• Because they have long-term relationships with those residents who might be threatened in a disaster, local officials usually have more credibility when evacuation orders are given, and information is disseminated; are more sensitive to the needs of residents; and are better able to anticipate how residents will react in a crisis.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

• Local officials are elected or appointed by the representatives of voters and thus are responsible to those voters. The responsibility that officials feel for their constituents, and vice versa, does not go away when state and federal officials arrive on the scene.

• However, whether local officials have the resources and technical skill to respond adequately is uncertain.

• Some local government agencies are highly professional, highly trained, and quite capable of handling most emergencies.

• Others, however, lack the financial resources, technical expertise, and leadership to deal effectively with even small emergencies.

• It is for that reason, the unevenness of local capabilities, that stronger state and regional support is generally recommended.

• The structure of local, particularly county, governments often makes it unclear which official is in charge during an emergency.

• Emergency response agencies, however, usually have clear chains of command, but not always clear relationships with other response agencies.

• The fire services commonly rely upon the Incident Command System (ICS) to ensure unity of command, clear lines of authority, continuity when command is transferred to another official or unit, an effective allocation of personnel and equipment, and discipline among the firefighters so that their efforts can be effectively directed.

How government agencies, departments, and offices interact is affected by their legal responsibilities, the internal politics within

their governments, their organizational structures, the personalities of their leaders, and their experience with other

agencies or officials.

The authority and responsibilities of agencies, departments, and offices within the same government depend upon the powers that are explicitly defined in the government’s charter, constitution, and statutes. Authority and responsibility may also be affected by past

practice.

Legal/Political/Administrative Factors and Intragovernmental Relations

• Federal government powers are explicitly stated or implied in the U.S. Constitution, subject to the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court;

• State government powers are, according to the “reserve clause” of the U.S. Constitution, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government; and

• Local government and special district powers are derived from the state government and are generally defined in the state constitution, laws regarding incorporation of municipalities, and/or other statutes.

Agencies, departments, and offices (“bureaus” in the public administration literature) within the same government have the

authority and responsibilities that are:

• expressly stated in the constitution, charter, or statutes when the agency was created;

• mandated by subsequent legislation or regulations; or • assigned by the chief executive officer or chief administrative

officer and within the limitations set by law and budgets.

Agencies, departments, and offices are subject to the authority of the government’s chief executive (e.g., president, governor, mayor, chairperson of the county

commission, city, or county manager) or designated chief administrative officer, but that authority may be limited by law. For example:

• the law that created the agency, department, or office may specifically delegate powers and mandate responsibilities to it;

• the legislative body may have sole or principal authority to authorize spending and appropriate funds, thereby determining what agencies can do (as Congress does) at the federal level; and

• legislative approval may be necessary for changes in authority and responsibilities, reorganizations, and appointments of executives (e.g., agency directors and department heads).

Officials and agencies may expand their responsibilities without having legal authority to do so – they simply begin fulfilling a function or providing a service and everyone comes to expect that they will continue to do so.

Such “mission creep” may result from new grants of authority or practice.

Officials may find it necessary or politically useful to defend the “turf,” i.e., missions and resources, of their agencies, departments, or offices from any organization that might take over one of their roles. If the mission is lost,

there is no reason for the organization to exist.

• Agencies, departments, and offices may assume responsibilities not expressly mandated by law or assigned by responsible officials, and this often occurs during a crisis; but there may be questions concerning the organization’s legal authority to spend public money and use public resources for those purposes.

The heads of agencies, departments, and offices:

• are held legally and politically accountable for the actions of their organizations and they may be held personally responsible for expenditures of public money;

• are legally accountable to chief executives and their designated representatives, legislative bodies (particularly the committees that authorize their spending and appropriate money), and the courts; and,

• are politically and administratively accountable to those who appoint them to office, fund their agencies, and have political responsibility for their actions.

• The heads of agencies, departments, and offices may be called upon to answer for their actions by any or all of the officials to whom they are accountable—the chief executive, legislators, judicial officers (e.g., judges and district attorneys), and/or administrative officers.

• The heads of agencies, departments, and offices, therefore, have to be responsive to the elected political executives who appoint them and approve their budgets, the legislators and legislative committee staffs who authorize spending and appropriate funds, the courts that interpret law and regulations affecting their organizations, and the public that supports their activities.

• Because the heads of agencies, departments, and offices may be accountable to a number of officials, they may have to seek the approval of more than one official in order to act on a nonroutine matter—or take the risk that an official upon whom they rely for support will object to their action.

• Because the heads of agencies, departments, and offices may be accountable to a number of officials, they may take advantage of their support to expand their organization’s authority and responsibilities (see Aaron Wildavsky’s classic work, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 4th ed., 1984).

• The legal and political environment may facilitate cooperation with other agencies within the same government, but it may also create competition over scarce public resources, mainly budgets, and over public attention (which also may affect budgets).

• Some officials may also be reluctant to seek outside assistance, e.g., from another agency within their own government, because that may be interpreted as a sign that they cannot do the job that they are expected to do and can result in having some part of their mission and their budget given to another agency.

Officials are legally and administratively responsible for any facilities, equipment, personnel, material, and funds assigned to their agencies and they will be responsible for any loss, damage, or expenditure of resources

shared with another agency.

• For example, officials will be responsible for paying any overtime owed to personnel loaned to the other agency, unless that overtime is approved by an official or legislative body with legal authority to do so or the loan is done through a formal mechanism that assures that such responsibility is also transferred to the other agency.

• Also, their government may be held liable for any injuries to personnel loaned to another government.

Public organizations have their own missions and interpretations of disaster and, as a result, there may be problems that are not addressed and victims

that are not helped by any government agency following a disaster.

• For example, victims have to qualify under the Stafford Act or other federal legislation in order to receive individual assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Small Business Administration is responsible for assisting businesses that have suffered economic losses due to disaster. Each agency addresses the needs of a particular group or groups of victims.

• However, some victims may not receive assistance from any federal agencies because they fall outside of the agencies’ legally defined responsibilities. Fortunately, in a disaster relief operation, nonprofit agencies may fill in the gaps by addressing the needs of victims who do not qualify for federal or state assistance or get too little assistance.

Problems That Require Cooperation

Public organizations may not have the flexibility to share resources and cooperate with other agencies even within

their own governments.

• For example, officials in municipal public works department may have heavy equipment that might be used to remove debris following a disaster, but they may not be able to loan that equipment to another agency because they will be held responsible for any damage.

• However, in an emergency, officials may determine that they are willing to risk losing the equipment if lives are at stake.

Public organizations tend to develop their own jargon or language to facilitate communication among employees. Outsiders, even people within the same government, may

not understand the terminology.

• For example, firefighters have technical terminology regarding the nature and status of fires, such as referring to a fire as being “under control” when it is still burning and giving off noxious fumes. There have been cases in which law enforcement officers have put themselves in danger (have even been incapacitated) during chemical fires because they interpreted “under control” as meaning the fire was “out” and no danger existed.

Technical language may be of critical importance and may convey ideas that cannot be expressed without lengthy explanation. Failure to use the approved technical language can also create problems.

• For example, two aircraft collided on a runway because an air traffic controller used the nonstandard term “cleared to taxi” and one of the pilots interpreted it to mean the standard term “cleared to takeoff.” The aircraft on the ground taxied onto the runway to takeoff and was in the path of an incoming aircraft.

Problems that require cooperation

• When the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was created, it was decided that standard English was the default language. Law enforcement officials complained that they use terms that are not in common usage because they do not want everyone to understand what they are saying.

• Military organizations have a legendary fondness for the use of acronyms that have no meaning for those outside of the military. A common rule in meetings involving personnel from two or more organizations is to prohibit the use of acronyms because they create misunderstanding.

• On a more fundamental level, language is how ideas are packaged. Not all ideas translate well into another language. Organizations, like nations, have their own set of values and the assumptions that underlie those values may not be readily apparent to those unfamiliar with the organization.

Some public organizations may already share resources, and having one organization mobilize its resources may cause serious problems

for another.

• For example, many law enforcement officers and other emergency response personnel are members of local National Guard units. If local National Guard units are called to duty in response to a disaster, local police departments, hospitals, fire stations, and other critical services may find themselves shorthanded.

• The remedy for this problem is to use National Guard units from other parts of the state or from other states; interstate compacts are being developed so that units can be borrowed from other states.

• Resource sharing and other forms of cooperation and collaboration can become part of an emergency plan or protocol and be authorized by the appropriate officials prior to the disaster.

• Mutual aid agreements, memoranda of understanding, and other formal agreements can also be negotiated prior to disasters and provide legal basis for cooperation.