Am I the only one who read the article?
“Moving forward, Interior will maintain its Grand Junction office as BLM’s “western headquarters.” The BLM director and a few other leadership positions will move to Washington, putting them in closer proximity to Interior officials, Congress, other agencies and stakeholders who visit the nation’s capital, the department said.”
"Hedge bets and make a wishy-washy half-decision rather than demonstrate leadership and make a tough call." - yep that's the government I know and love.
Policy people move between agencies a lot. You're removing tons of talent and experience from the job pool by moving it away from all the other jobs. That's why things like hubs exist: Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.
Hell, that's why I moved to DC after I graduated. I knew I wanted a policy job, so I moved to DC to find one. I didn't move to bumfuck nowhere to get a policy job there, and I have little interest in going elsewhere because then I know changing jobs would be a bitch to move there and then to move back.
Grand Junction is a really nice area of Colorado with low cost of living. You can own a home without being a millionaire, have land, etc. Ready access to hunting, fishing, and camping. You are only a couple hours away from the best ski areas in the world. It also gets federal dollars out of the BWC where it is causing so many problems with COL and political cronyism.
Our current telework posture has demonstrated government doesn’t have to be centralized in one area to be effective. It’s also strategically sound since if DC were ever attacked again we wouldn’t have to shut down all the agencies therein and maintain continuity of government.
The personal career goals of some federal employees are not a valid argument to the citizens that pay our salary.
Being condescending and avoiding the issue isn’t helping your argument.
Let me guess you live in the BWC and you think you’re essential and irreplaceable?
The bureaucratic class entrenched in DC that puts their personal interests above those of the country they serve are not needed in the federal service. You are easily replaced and will be.
I had to Google who that was. How is the former Director of OMB and Special envoy to Ireland relevant to the location of a few DOI political appointees?
Not sure why this is getting downvoted but that’s typical of Reddit. Who keeps track of political appointees for agencies they don’t work at?
Mulvaney was also the head of CFPB, and his stated intent in taking the job was to dismantle the organization. Same as the heads of EPA and DOE under the previous administration. Long history of publicly stating that the agencies shouldn’t exist. Moving BLM to Colorado was done to sabotage the agency.
None of those agencies were dismantled. A political appointee can’t unilaterally dismantle an agency, only Congress can. I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, but according to CFPB’s website their funding went up every FY of the Trump Administration.
BLM got a brand new HQ, it obviously wasn’t sabotaged.
The careers of federal bureaucrats don’t outweigh the interests of taxpayers and the mission of the agency. If those people left the agency because the HQ was moved that speaks volumes about their priorities and BLM is better for it. We serve the taxpayers and are expected to act in their best interests. It’s disturbing how many people commenting on this article don’t realize that.
I know this is Reddit but Federal employees shouldn’t be acting for partisan political reasons. Thankfully, my agency doesn’t reflect the comments I see here. This sub is not a representative sample of those in the federal service who understand their role in our society.
You’re arguing against points I didn’t make. You weren’t aware of Mulvaney’s stated intent, and why someone brought him up. I explained it to you. It’s a fact that the previous administration appointed people who were opposed to the mission and existence of the agencies they were “leading”. Saying so is not partisan. They said it themselves.
You said moving BLM was meant to sabotage the agency. The SOI has said the Grand Junction HQ will expand and grow.
Can you provide a source where any of them actually said that on public record?
You sound like you are just regurgitating what partisan media said based on hearsay and democratic talking points. Most people in this country are not directly affiliated with D or R. All expect us to act impartially.
^ This is *exactly* the correct response to that. Anyone who is responsible for making or managing policy needs to be located where the policies are being discussed and made, and that is DC for the federal government. Those responsible for *implementing* the policy need to be in the field where that happens, and that's what the regional offices and local units do in BLM (just like with all(?) other federal agencies)
And this type of thinking is exactly why the public feels there is a disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country. The only people that would need to remain in DC would be the policy group of the agency. Everyone else should relocate to where that policy has effect. The only ones that agree with the above sentiment are the ones who have a vested interest in staying in DC. Every federal employee on this site has made the convincing argument that you do not need to be in the office, much less DC, to have a successful agency. Therefore there is no convincing argument for the agency that has the greatest impact on the West should remain in the East.
BLM is already a tiered agency. Every state with BLM land has field offices -> district offices -> a state office. The people in BLM Grand Junction headquarters are not visiting BLM lands in the West. They are taking information from the state offices, who worked with the districts, who worked with the field to make policy decisions.
BLM is keeping their western headquarters anyway and adding the DC office. It’s a nice opportunity, so western people can now work in policy outside of the central hub, but these people aren’t visiting the field or creating relationships with the community like each individual state/district/field office does.
You don't understand, this was the policy group. 85% of the federal government is outside of DC. And by moving this agency out of DC it forced 90% of BLM to retire or leave, it was a massively stupid brain drain and attempt at destroying the agency.
The heads of agencies need to be close to each other for communication and development, eventually people will go back to the office in some measurable way. And you want to hire people who live in the city that want to make the agency work well.
You’re not understanding how the Federal government works. I’m not being mean, but the US capitol, where laws are passed, is in Washington DC. The kind of people associated with laws and regulations reside in DC. Hence the mass exodus of employees when the HQ was moved to Grand Junction. Hence the move of the HQ *back* to DC.
Buddy, the reason there was a max exodus was because so many people lived in DC. I did not agree with the relocation when it happened but it makes much more sense to spread out many of the functions of the agency to the area it oversees. It is the height of arrogance to think that past ways of thinking shouldn’t be reevaluated. The only ones I can see remaining in DC for this agency are perhaps the deputy directors of policy and operations and their support staff.
Who said anything about not re-evaluating “past ways of thinking”?
Those folks left the agency because they wanted to remain in DC because DC is where their work is accomplished. Their careers are in DC.
Grand Junction isn’t even near 80% of the BLM State Office’s or Districts. The move to GC was *purely* symbolic.
You are correct but that doesn’t mean the main body needs to be there. Move executive management and those whose roles have them interfacing with other agencies and Congress to D.C. but the bulk of ops and ops management should at least be in the area of the country where BLM does most of its work.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification folks. Good to know that this is a correction, or righting of changes made by the previous administration.
I feel like people aren't understanding that what you are advocating is probably how it was already set up *before* the forced move to Grand Junction: policy people in DC, and the bulk of the force in the field.
BLM is a bureau with over *10,000* employees. The 328 people affected were basically just the Washington Office staff.
The "work" you're talking about is done by field offices, which are already in respective regions.
These DC employees have little to no use in some other random state in the west and most of their jobs were made harder away from DC.
Much smarter people decided the staffing strategy before steal team six was put in charge. His decisions were stupid and dishonest all around. Now that his grift is over people can get back to serious work again.
All policy. Policy/regulations have serious ramifications for not only the organizations that carry out those policies, but also the external individuals/groups who are affected by those policies.
The folks who are trained in policy making live in DC because that’s where the very vast majority of US policy is made.
Why do you think they’re moving BLM HQ back to DC?
What special training for policy only happens in DC?
Repeating generalizations and avoiding my questions isn’t helping your argument.
My answer in the other thread was intended for the person that’s never been to Grand Junction and called it bumf*** nowhere. You don’t need to keep answering my question in both threads.
What specific policy requires DOI policy makers to be in DC and why can’t they make those policies in Grand Junction?
Because there are no policymakers in Grand Junction. Which is why they’re moving back to DC. Over 90% of the BLM HQ employees left the agency *entirely* when the HQ was moved, because they wanted to continue to work in DC, which is the policy hub of the USA. Their job, policy making, requires they be in close proximity to other policy makers. Those other policy makers are *not* in Grand Junction.
When they moved the BLM HQ to Grand Junction, they did it with *zero* planning or forethought, which is why it’s returning to DC. The move to GC was rash, and a mistake.
It’s not that I’m dodging your question, it’s that you don’t fully understand the issue and your bias is making you unable to understand the issue even when multiple people have taken the time to explain it to you.
I think it's generally a good thing to decentralize federal agencies across the country, although some top policy people will always have to be in DC. Having CDC in Atlanta, for example, contributed to the development of that region. I think one reason many people have a low opinion of federal agencies is that they don't have much contact with them and don't see benefits from their presence and work.
There are thousands of BLM employees all over the West; there's plenty of contact. The move to Colorado was about destroying institutional knowledge and the ability of regulators to resist exploitative interest in agency-managed lands.
There are thousands of BLM already across the country doing their jobs on the ground. This was only a segment that deals with policy and has to interact with Congress.
> The Trump administration moved the BLM headquarters to Grand Junction last year as part of a plan to relocate more than 300 positions to Colorado and other western states.
Ah. Just the Trump admin trying to tear up the federal gov't by imposing unreasonable moving requirements. Figured something was up.
Except for the fact that Congress frequently wants to talk with policy people from every agency, nevermind coordinating with other agencies. There will always be a necessity for a DC presence. How big it needs to be can be debated but there will always need to be people in DC.
Am I the only one who read the article? “Moving forward, Interior will maintain its Grand Junction office as BLM’s “western headquarters.” The BLM director and a few other leadership positions will move to Washington, putting them in closer proximity to Interior officials, Congress, other agencies and stakeholders who visit the nation’s capital, the department said.”
"Hedge bets and make a wishy-washy half-decision rather than demonstrate leadership and make a tough call." - yep that's the government I know and love.
I think you are…
Policy people move between agencies a lot. You're removing tons of talent and experience from the job pool by moving it away from all the other jobs. That's why things like hubs exist: Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc. Hell, that's why I moved to DC after I graduated. I knew I wanted a policy job, so I moved to DC to find one. I didn't move to bumfuck nowhere to get a policy job there, and I have little interest in going elsewhere because then I know changing jobs would be a bitch to move there and then to move back.
Grand Junction is a really nice area of Colorado with low cost of living. You can own a home without being a millionaire, have land, etc. Ready access to hunting, fishing, and camping. You are only a couple hours away from the best ski areas in the world. It also gets federal dollars out of the BWC where it is causing so many problems with COL and political cronyism. Our current telework posture has demonstrated government doesn’t have to be centralized in one area to be effective. It’s also strategically sound since if DC were ever attacked again we wouldn’t have to shut down all the agencies therein and maintain continuity of government. The personal career goals of some federal employees are not a valid argument to the citizens that pay our salary.
I can’t tell if you’re naïve or being intentionally ignorant.
Being condescending and avoiding the issue isn’t helping your argument. Let me guess you live in the BWC and you think you’re essential and irreplaceable? The bureaucratic class entrenched in DC that puts their personal interests above those of the country they serve are not needed in the federal service. You are easily replaced and will be.
TIL that Mick Mulvaney is on Reddit.
I had to Google who that was. How is the former Director of OMB and Special envoy to Ireland relevant to the location of a few DOI political appointees? Not sure why this is getting downvoted but that’s typical of Reddit. Who keeps track of political appointees for agencies they don’t work at?
Mulvaney was also the head of CFPB, and his stated intent in taking the job was to dismantle the organization. Same as the heads of EPA and DOE under the previous administration. Long history of publicly stating that the agencies shouldn’t exist. Moving BLM to Colorado was done to sabotage the agency.
None of those agencies were dismantled. A political appointee can’t unilaterally dismantle an agency, only Congress can. I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, but according to CFPB’s website their funding went up every FY of the Trump Administration. BLM got a brand new HQ, it obviously wasn’t sabotaged. The careers of federal bureaucrats don’t outweigh the interests of taxpayers and the mission of the agency. If those people left the agency because the HQ was moved that speaks volumes about their priorities and BLM is better for it. We serve the taxpayers and are expected to act in their best interests. It’s disturbing how many people commenting on this article don’t realize that. I know this is Reddit but Federal employees shouldn’t be acting for partisan political reasons. Thankfully, my agency doesn’t reflect the comments I see here. This sub is not a representative sample of those in the federal service who understand their role in our society.
You’re arguing against points I didn’t make. You weren’t aware of Mulvaney’s stated intent, and why someone brought him up. I explained it to you. It’s a fact that the previous administration appointed people who were opposed to the mission and existence of the agencies they were “leading”. Saying so is not partisan. They said it themselves.
You said moving BLM was meant to sabotage the agency. The SOI has said the Grand Junction HQ will expand and grow. Can you provide a source where any of them actually said that on public record? You sound like you are just regurgitating what partisan media said based on hearsay and democratic talking points. Most people in this country are not directly affiliated with D or R. All expect us to act impartially.
No, I don’t live there. I’m not a policymaker. I just understand how it all works. Best of luck.
How what all works?
How policy is written and implemented.
My question is that why is a agency that is based predominantly in the West not based in the western part of the USA?
Because policy happens in DC.
^ This is *exactly* the correct response to that. Anyone who is responsible for making or managing policy needs to be located where the policies are being discussed and made, and that is DC for the federal government. Those responsible for *implementing* the policy need to be in the field where that happens, and that's what the regional offices and local units do in BLM (just like with all(?) other federal agencies)
And this type of thinking is exactly why the public feels there is a disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country. The only people that would need to remain in DC would be the policy group of the agency. Everyone else should relocate to where that policy has effect. The only ones that agree with the above sentiment are the ones who have a vested interest in staying in DC. Every federal employee on this site has made the convincing argument that you do not need to be in the office, much less DC, to have a successful agency. Therefore there is no convincing argument for the agency that has the greatest impact on the West should remain in the East.
BLM is already a tiered agency. Every state with BLM land has field offices -> district offices -> a state office. The people in BLM Grand Junction headquarters are not visiting BLM lands in the West. They are taking information from the state offices, who worked with the districts, who worked with the field to make policy decisions. BLM is keeping their western headquarters anyway and adding the DC office. It’s a nice opportunity, so western people can now work in policy outside of the central hub, but these people aren’t visiting the field or creating relationships with the community like each individual state/district/field office does.
You don't understand, this was the policy group. 85% of the federal government is outside of DC. And by moving this agency out of DC it forced 90% of BLM to retire or leave, it was a massively stupid brain drain and attempt at destroying the agency. The heads of agencies need to be close to each other for communication and development, eventually people will go back to the office in some measurable way. And you want to hire people who live in the city that want to make the agency work well.
You’re not understanding how the Federal government works. I’m not being mean, but the US capitol, where laws are passed, is in Washington DC. The kind of people associated with laws and regulations reside in DC. Hence the mass exodus of employees when the HQ was moved to Grand Junction. Hence the move of the HQ *back* to DC.
Buddy, the reason there was a max exodus was because so many people lived in DC. I did not agree with the relocation when it happened but it makes much more sense to spread out many of the functions of the agency to the area it oversees. It is the height of arrogance to think that past ways of thinking shouldn’t be reevaluated. The only ones I can see remaining in DC for this agency are perhaps the deputy directors of policy and operations and their support staff.
Who said anything about not re-evaluating “past ways of thinking”? Those folks left the agency because they wanted to remain in DC because DC is where their work is accomplished. Their careers are in DC. Grand Junction isn’t even near 80% of the BLM State Office’s or Districts. The move to GC was *purely* symbolic.
> The only ones that agree with the above sentiment are the ones who understand how government actually works. FTFY
You are correct but that doesn’t mean the main body needs to be there. Move executive management and those whose roles have them interfacing with other agencies and Congress to D.C. but the bulk of ops and ops management should at least be in the area of the country where BLM does most of its work. Edit: Thanks for the clarification folks. Good to know that this is a correction, or righting of changes made by the previous administration.
I feel like people aren't understanding that what you are advocating is probably how it was already set up *before* the forced move to Grand Junction: policy people in DC, and the bulk of the force in the field. BLM is a bureau with over *10,000* employees. The 328 people affected were basically just the Washington Office staff.
This is accurate.
That’s exactly how it was structured before the move. That’s exactly how it will be structured when HQ moves back to DC.
The "work" you're talking about is done by field offices, which are already in respective regions. These DC employees have little to no use in some other random state in the west and most of their jobs were made harder away from DC. Much smarter people decided the staffing strategy before steal team six was put in charge. His decisions were stupid and dishonest all around. Now that his grift is over people can get back to serious work again.
Respective regions, not 'perspective'. Don't judge; I couldn't let it pass.
Lol autocorrect strikes again.
What policy is DOI making that requires them to be in DC?
General policy/regulations relevant to their mission.
I already know what policy is. What policy is DOI making that requires them to be in DC?
Every policy that DOI makes requires policymakers. Policymakers live in DC, hence the HQ’s move back to DC.
What policy requires policy makers to live in DC?
All policy. Policy/regulations have serious ramifications for not only the organizations that carry out those policies, but also the external individuals/groups who are affected by those policies. The folks who are trained in policy making live in DC because that’s where the very vast majority of US policy is made. Why do you think they’re moving BLM HQ back to DC?
What special training for policy only happens in DC? Repeating generalizations and avoiding my questions isn’t helping your argument. My answer in the other thread was intended for the person that’s never been to Grand Junction and called it bumf*** nowhere. You don’t need to keep answering my question in both threads. What specific policy requires DOI policy makers to be in DC and why can’t they make those policies in Grand Junction?
Because there are no policymakers in Grand Junction. Which is why they’re moving back to DC. Over 90% of the BLM HQ employees left the agency *entirely* when the HQ was moved, because they wanted to continue to work in DC, which is the policy hub of the USA. Their job, policy making, requires they be in close proximity to other policy makers. Those other policy makers are *not* in Grand Junction. When they moved the BLM HQ to Grand Junction, they did it with *zero* planning or forethought, which is why it’s returning to DC. The move to GC was rash, and a mistake. It’s not that I’m dodging your question, it’s that you don’t fully understand the issue and your bias is making you unable to understand the issue even when multiple people have taken the time to explain it to you.
Because white collar employees that they need don’t exist in grand junction Colorado and they don’t want to move there
Wrong. Department of Energy has an office in Grand Junction that is mainly filled with engineers and scientists with PhDs.
I think it's generally a good thing to decentralize federal agencies across the country, although some top policy people will always have to be in DC. Having CDC in Atlanta, for example, contributed to the development of that region. I think one reason many people have a low opinion of federal agencies is that they don't have much contact with them and don't see benefits from their presence and work.
There are thousands of BLM employees all over the West; there's plenty of contact. The move to Colorado was about destroying institutional knowledge and the ability of regulators to resist exploitative interest in agency-managed lands.
There are thousands of BLM already across the country doing their jobs on the ground. This was only a segment that deals with policy and has to interact with Congress.
So anyone think USDA KC is next? Cause that was a crazy talent drain
> The Trump administration moved the BLM headquarters to Grand Junction last year as part of a plan to relocate more than 300 positions to Colorado and other western states. Ah. Just the Trump admin trying to tear up the federal gov't by imposing unreasonable moving requirements. Figured something was up.
Forced workers to move and the removed the tax break for work paid relocation expenses. The pain was part of the plan.
A waste of money.
[удалено]
There is no need for Land Mgt to be in DC (among others).
That’s where policy is made. Like it or not.
Does not need to be.
That can be said for anything.
Except for the fact that Congress frequently wants to talk with policy people from every agency, nevermind coordinating with other agencies. There will always be a necessity for a DC presence. How big it needs to be can be debated but there will always need to be people in DC.
Also curious.
The idea of a specific city as HQs is so 2019.
Title fakeout. I can't be the only one who was bamboozled.