OceanStWx Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The ITOs at the WFOs are pretty much like Star Trek's Scotty. Most employees probably know an ITO who runs around fixing one problem after another to keep things running smoothly to make sure everyone else can do their jobs properly. Just a terribly short sighted response to the budget crunch. I just finished up the conference call transcript from earlier today, and the gist was that the 4% or so came from IT, therefore the ITOs seemed like the best way to handle the roughly 10 million they needed to cut. The claim was that they couldn't eliminate other positions because it had to come from IT resources. They also claimed that we need to focus more on IT efficiency. So getting rid of 98 ITOs seems counterintuitive to me. I can't see how our office would possibly be more efficient by getting rid of our ITO. Especially when you consider that we'll be upgrading to AWIPS2 over the summer. The reports are that a lot of bugs still need to be worked out of the system. I'd hate to think about what a computer hiccup during a serial derecho would be like without support staff on station. The biggest shocker in all of this was the loss of lightning data. That is something that is crucial for operations. Hopefully that comes back in the future. That blew me away too. I can't imagine that this is a prohibitive cost in the grand scheme of things, especially something that is so useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 get rid of some MICs and SOOs. i dunno. if you are going to cut, start wiith the big meat first. for dinky offices in the south and midwest to be staffed at the same level as some of the northeast mega centers has never made sense to me. if we cant increase staff at place like sterling, mt holly and taunton, lower the levels at some of the tiny offices. the ITO would not be a good place to start. lots of bang for the buck there. can fill in on shifts. takes care of the equipment software...a tough job. While I think it's inevitable that we head in this direction, there are a few reasons I think it is going to hurt operations in the long run. One being that we lose touch with the people we are supposed to be protecting in the first place. The more local the office, the larger presence they can have in the community. I feel like that garners a better response to our products, and it also gives us more timely and accurate information from the spotters and public during significant weather. Two, I think forecasters can lose touch with their area of responsibility. We can really get into local effects of individual CWAs by maintaining local WFOs. A larger area of responsibility means more local effects, and a greater likelihood that something falls through the cracks. For whatever reason hydro examples seem to be popping into my head right now. But knowing individual towns and streets that are prone to flash flooding. Or that a specific bridge in a town leads to ice jam flooding upstream. Or that erosion from Irene has changed flood stage at a certain river gauge (despite there being no plans to resurvey the stage). Never mind a regionalized severe weather outbreak. I can't imagine 4/27/11 being handled by one office responsible for say MS, AL, GA and TN. The amount of staff needed would be immense. Sectorization for warnings would probably lead to quite a bit of confusion. And you also forget that these offices are staffed 24/7. For you to cut employees at one WFO, that means that fewer people are there to work the same amount of shifts. That's longer shifts and/or more hours per week, which leads to OT especially during significant weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There hasn't been any talk of closing offices...but I could see the the term CONOPS rear it's ugly head in the future. I have a feeling Obama's budget will have a difficult time passing through Congress, so if I were an ITO I'd be weighing my options, but I wouldn't be too worried right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There hasn't been any talk of closing offices...but I could see the the term CONOPS rear it's ugly head in the future. I have a feeling Obama's budget will have a difficult time passing through Congress, so if I were an ITO I'd be weighing my options, but I wouldn't be too worried right now. Except for nutjobs when he was in like Santorum, we are viewed pretty favorably by most of Congress, so I would believe their initial counterproposal may be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Except for nutjobs when he was in like Santorum, we are viewed pretty favorably by most of Congress, so I would believe their initial counterproposal may be better. Yeah that and the fact that the House has made it their mission to block any administration act that comes their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 One part I found interesting was 2/3rds of the ITOs right now are previous 1340s. I thought it was less than that by now. Anyway, these folks would be allowed back into forecaster positions non-competitively...probably lead spots. I don't have a problem with this, but it could create a rather stagnant hiring situation for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujiwara Effect Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yeah the whole thing is weird. I say combine all the science agencies like geology, space, ocean. weather, etc into a new department. The Department of Science. A department which would make sense and would look after their specific needs. Then combine the DOC and DOT with the DOI. Certainly Weather Prediction helps Commerce understood, but really this a great idea. Right now "a Department of Science" would be the first thing coming out of the mouths of some politicians, but it is a sound argument and it should be fully funded as we have been losing ground to other countires who respect science and know the cutting edge is where the bread is buttered. As ex-NWS I was in during the Carter and Reagan cuts and it sucked beans! I will never forget hnaging out on the RAWARC teletype circuit seeing if my station was cut -- it was and of course -- after I had to move on they reinstated it. I feel sorry for any ITO in jepardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 As much as I think we need the amount of offices we have, you are right on. In difficult budget times, it is hard to argue that a tiny office in the middle of the plains is as important as Boulder, NYC, Boston, etc. I am not necessarily looking to set up shop in a small office in the future for this various reason as this is a legit worry. Should the NWS choose to relocate offices, it will be the tiny ones that will go, obviously. I don't think we are close to that happening, however. Any talk of significant layoffs and/or office closures, at this juncture, doesn't seem to have any factual support. One trouble with merging offices...where do you put the extra people? There's barely enough room for the team we already have at our office. My old office in White Lake MI (Detroit) is even smaller. The agency would need to either renovate the current building or move to another (larger) facility. Either option would cost money...and then toss in the cost to move people from the other offices. This would not be a cheap option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 One part I found interesting was 2/3rds of the ITOs right now are previous 1340s. I thought it was less than that by now. Anyway, these folks would be allowed back into forecaster positions non-competitively...probably lead spots. I don't have a problem with this, but it could create a rather stagnant hiring situation for a few years. I've heard a couple of reports of forecasters making light of this potential layoff situation. They probably haven't even considered the idea of 1340-eligible ITOs bouncing forecasters out of jobs. The domino effect from this, if it actually happens, could be a total charlie foxtrot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixotic1 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There hasn't been any talk of closing offices...but I could see the the term CONOPS rear it's ugly head in the future. I have a feeling Obama's budget will have a difficult time passing through Congress, so if I were an ITO I'd be weighing my options, but I wouldn't be too worried right now. If it has a hard time, it only means they'll want more and bigger cuts. Perhaps the NWS should get declared part of the DOD to avoid these political scrapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. There it is! Can't believe it took that long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. There it is! Can't believe it took that long... Individuals are free to say what they want, but after working in both private sector and now NWS, anyone who makes that claim both knows little of what goes on in a WFO or how poor an automated forecast system is (private wx firms with minimal forecaster input...although not all private firms are like this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not to mention there is a distinct difference between what private wx firms (for profit) do and the NWS does. You hit on a small part of it (supplying data), but you don't even come close to discussing the many other aspects of a WFO w.r.t. public forecasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I was wondering when would that be implemented...huge cut on expenses, though being government, I'm not sure how easy would it be to sort all kinds of security and bureaucratic issues. Not sure exactly when or even much of the details, but word is this directive came down from high regarding cuts in IT (government wide...not just NWS), so there is a need to move data to the cloud. I have heard all sorts of numbers, but they range from a couple to 5+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. NWS offices have large local outreach efforts to recruit and retain spotters and volunteer observers, and work hard at keeping close working relationships with local media, law enforcement, and emergency management to make sure they're getting what they need to get warnings and information to the public as quickly as possible. Before big weather events, there are many, many phone calls made and received, emergency management and media conference calls and web briefings held, etc., because NWS is only part of a CWA-wide team that protects the public. There's no way all that could be handled by one national forecast center. There's much more to a local NWS office than a forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The idea that just because you have data/processing on the cloud that you can get rid of IT folks is a fallacy. Hardware support and maintenance is only a small fraction of what these guys do. Any resultant savings from the cloud would materialize mostly in electricity bills and possibly equipment budget, but with numerous dedicated machines full time it's about a push unless you're really clever about acquiring resources on-demand, for which you need an IT guy. As for the national model of WFOs: I don't think the poster understands the degree to which state and local officials rely on their forecasters. All around big metro areas these people are on first name basis with the mets and there is tons of value in them understanding the lay of the land and the particulars of command chains. Not to mention the intracacies of local forecasts themselves... And private businesses have entirely different priorities as an NWS. Really I could go on and on about why this wouldn't work but I'd end up with a bunch of tldr's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 NWS offices have large local outreach efforts to recruit and retain spotters and volunteer observers, and work hard at keeping close working relationships with local media, law enforcement, and emergency management to make sure they're getting what they need to get warnings and information to the public as quickly as possible. Before big weather events, there are many, many phone calls made and received, emergency management and media conference calls and web briefings held, etc., because NWS is only part of a CWA-wide team that protects the public. There's no way all that could be handled by one national forecast center. There's much more to a local NWS office than a forecast. Also, each WFO has an electronics staff that is responsible for the radar, weather radio, and observation equipment within the CWA and they're on site and on call to be able to quickly fix a problem, which is critical during severe weather. With a national forecast center, how would that work? You'd have either NWS employed or contract repair people still spread out all over the country so that they're close enough to local equipment and wouldn't save much money by doing that. Besides, private forecasting companies don't have warning responsibility for the 3,000+ counties in the United States like the NWS does (they may provide private alerts to businesses, which isn't anywhere near the same), so it's easier to have one global forecast center and just make forecasts. The NWS didn't spread itself across the country just because it seemed like a good way to get rid of tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. As an example... A certain PA private weather firm had only rain in the forecast today for the Poconos of northeastern PA yet there was as much as 2.7 inches of snow across the higher terrain. Oops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Individuals are free to say what they want, but after working in both private sector and now NWS, anyone who makes that claim both knows little of what goes on in a WFO or how poor an automated forecast system is (private wx firms with minimal forecaster input...although not all private firms are like this). I agree as I have also worked in the private sector before the NWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCNYILWX Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Which is also very likely a response to FY12 when the NWS got a decent increase while others (like OAR) got hit hard. Here's FY11 to FY13 National Ocean Service: $467M to $458M National Marine Fisheries: $856M to $801M Oceanic and Atmospheric Research: $418M to $403M NWS: $871M to $872M National Environmental Satellite Service: $184M to $191M Program Support: $453M to $433M What I haven't understood with all this is why cutting positions (and the other cut to services like the profiler network) is even having to be considered when the proposed FY13 budget is actually $1 million higher than FY11 and nothing like this was going on in FY11. Perhaps it was a bit shortsighted to do all those DSS pilot project hires and even to roll out Dual Pol if the response so far to the proposed FY13 budget is to look to cut the ITO position from the FOs. Cutting the ITO position from the FOs is certainly a terrible idea and it could result in Met Interns like myself losing our jobs if this is actually carried forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What I haven't understood with all this is why cutting positions (and the other cut to services like the profiler network) is even having to be considered when the proposed FY13 budget is actually $1 million higher than FY11 and nothing like this was going on in FY11. Perhaps it was a bit shortsighted to do all those DSS pilot project hires and even to roll out Dual Pol if the response so far to the proposed FY13 budget is to look to cut the ITO position from the FOs. Cutting the ITO position from the FOs is certainly a terrible idea and it could result in Met Interns like myself losing our jobs if this is actually carried forward. Actually the story is much longer than that, and the IT stuff is actually related to decisions to cut IT across the government (this is not an NWS decision). But there is a lot more at work here besides that decision to cut IT government wide. Should the IT's lose their positions, while a worst case scenario would be trickle down for the ITO's who are mets, not all ITO's are obviously mets. Moreover, many simply would not take the shift work schedule while others may retire. Also, in past cases, the NWS has tried to use retirements/attrition before RIF's, so I wouldn't worry all that much about ITO's taking forecast jobs away. It is a doom/gloom scenario that isn't particularly likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Actually the story is much longer than that, and the IT stuff is actually related to decisions to cut IT across the government (this is not an NWS decision). But there is a lot more at work here besides that decision to cut IT government wide. Should the IT's lose their positions, while a worst case scenario would be trickle down for the ITO's who are mets, not all ITO's are obviously mets. Moreover, many simply would not take the shift work schedule while others may retire. Also, in past cases, the NWS has tried to use retirements/attrition before RIF's, so I wouldn't worry all that much about ITO's taking forecast jobs away. It is a doom/gloom scenario that isn't particularly likely. Well it's true that the decision to cut the IT budget government wide is not the NWS's, it was their decision to make up this budget difference by getting rid of 98 ITO positions. As many have said here, that decision is what seems very shortsighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I've heard a couple of reports of forecasters making light of this potential layoff situation. They probably haven't even considered the idea of 1340-eligible ITOs bouncing forecasters out of jobs. The domino effect from this, if it actually happens, could be a total charlie foxtrot. Forget the domino effect, I would never make light of it because I know our ITO is probably THE most important person in the office (when it comes to making GFE, formatters, AWIPS, etc. all run smoothly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Private firms... forecast around the globe out of a single office. NWS is important for supplying data via models and satellites. Local offices are obsolete. NWS has a national hurricane center. National severe storm center. It should have a national center doing local forecasts. Sadly there is no need for local offices given current technology. Sadly in spite of dozens of posts from NWS employees about what we really do through the years, the same cut and paste posts keep on getting posted. http://www.americanw...ost__p__1268209 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Forget the domino effect, I would never make light of it because I know our ITO is probably THE most important person in the office (when it comes to making GFE, formatters, AWIPS, etc. all run smoothly). What major corporation would eliminate 75% of their on site IT staff in one year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What major corporation would eliminate 75% of their on site IT staff in one year? In a year where they are implementing a major change in IT (AWIPS2)! Not to mention ongoing things like dual-pol, GIS, etc. It's not like these people sit on their hands and wait for something to break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Zo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In a year where they are implementing a major change in IT (AWIPS2)! Not to mention ongoing things like dual-pol, GIS, etc. It's not like these people sit on their hands and wait for something to break. Don't forget about the web page transition. That's going to be an enormous amount of work, especially for offices in regions where a comprehensive CMS is not currently in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Don't forget about the web page transition. That's going to be an enormous amount of work, especially for offices in regions where a comprehensive CMS is not currently in place. When does the web page transition start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman21 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 There it is! Can't believe it took that long... Don't bother with blue sky. He's a known NWS hating troll. Any chance he gets he pops in to say why the NWS should be drastically cut back. It's quite repetitive and he/she's not receptive to open discussion. Perhaps blue sky works for one of the private companies that is forced to work out of one central office, and feels everyone else in this business ought to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.