NWS Budget Cuts

[RCNYILWX]

Pretty interesting and comical "meeting" the NWSEO had with NOAA management's Dr. Sullivan the other day.

Heard she stormed out of the "meeting." Seems like a great idea for a scientist to be making management decisions.

[isohume]

Heard she stormed out of the "meeting." Seems like a great idea for a scientist to be making management decisions.

Yep. She thought the NWSEO would have some sort of plan. Huh? Good to know our leaders at the top are cool headed and adaptable.

[Rainshadow]

Heard she stormed out of the "meeting." Seems like a great idea for a scientist to be making management decisions.

This whole ITO streamlining is the budgetary equivalent of re-arranging dust bunnies on the deck of the Titanic. NWS budget is 0.02 percent of the entire proposed FY13 budget. If I was netting $100,000 for the year and it cost me $20.00 to "run the NWS" annually, gutting the ITO program would save me maybe one cent out of that 100K.

[Cory]

The story behind that for those who don't know:

NOAA/NWS Leadership Storms out of Meeting

After NWSEO Refuses to assist in Developing a Plan to Eliminate ITO Positions

printable copy

(March 8, 2012) On Wednesday, March 7, NWSEO President Dan Sobien, Vice President Bill Hopkins, union counsel and several ITOs met with NOAA Deputy Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, NWS Director Jack Hayes, and other members of the NOAA and NWS leadership team to discuss the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the 122 Information Technology Officers at the WFOs. NWSEO came seeking an explanation of how the NWS’s plan to have 24 employees do the work – from a distance - currently performed by 122 ITOs was technically feasible, and was prepared to brief Deputy Administrator Sullivan on why it was not. In recent testimony and submissions to Congress, NOAA has claimed that “with technological improvements, such as Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System, NWS has gained the ability to fulfill much of the Information Technology Officer responsibilities remotely.”

Sullivan said that the purpose of the meeting was not to provide NWSEO with an opportunity to discuss the shortcomings of the agency’s plans, but rather to provide NWSEO with an opportunity to assist the agency in developing the plans to perform the ITOs’ work remotely. Management explained that it would only be willing to let NWSEO provide such input if the union agreed not to criticize the agency’s efforts to eliminate the ITOs in the media, or to continue to lobby in Congress to retain the ITO jobs.

In response, NWSEO explained to Sullivan and the other agency representatives that they misunderstood the purpose of a union – which is to fight to preserve jobs- not to assist management in eliminating them. NWSEO said that it would continue to lobby Congress to keep jobs and to discuss the matter with the press.

At this point in the meeting, Dr. Sullivan jumped from her chair, raised her voice and accused NWSEO of insulting her. She abruptly said that the meeting was over and began to storm out of the room in a rage. NWSEO responded by saying that it had been insulted if the agency thought that we were going to agree to give up employees’ jobs, and that NWSEO had been better treated by the political leadership of NOAA during the Bush Administration who never walked out of a meeting with NWSEO even when the parties disagreed.

Management asked NWSEO, a second time, if it would agree not to criticize the agency’s plans in the media or before Congress. NWSEO responded that if the union thought the agency’s plans were unfeasible or would endanger the public it certainly intended to alert Congress and the media.

Sullivan then hastily led the management representatives out of the room to caucus. After a long hiatus, they returned and said that the agency would now develop its plan to eliminate the ITOs on its own and would not discuss the matter with NWSEO or answer any of its questions until after Congress approves its request to eliminate the ITOs. Sullivan then said that the meeting was over and stormed out, followed by Jack Hayes and the other agency representatives.

The bottom line- NWS and NOAA do NOT yet know on how it can regionalize the work of the ITOs, and acted erratically when NWSEO would not help them develop a plan to do so.

[RCNYILWX]

This whole ITO streamlining is the budgetary equivalent of re-arranging dust bunnies on the deck of the Titanic. NWS budget is 0.02 percent of the entire proposed FY13 budget. If I was netting $100,000 for the year and it cost me $20.00 to "run the NWS" annually, gutting the ITO program would save me maybe one cent out of that 100K.

Missing from all this is an email from NOAA/HQ asking all of us at all the offices, local, regional, RFCs, SPC, HPC, NHC, etc. about ways that we can save money on things that are luxuries that we don't really need in these tough budget times. Such as basic satellite tv packages on the SADs, even though the network connection is slow, we could still just stream tv coverage from a website onto the SAD. Or iphones/blackberries/ipads provided to some in regional offices, which I've heard does occur. Redoubling efforts to print less legacy stuff. Moving NWR Transmitter maintenance from a contract with Intec (http://www.gao.gov/10/fl0049567.php- $7.8 million according to this 1996 GAO doc) to the ETs we already have. These are just some options to save a lot of money that might already add up to or even surpass the savings from the "ITO Efficiency" plan. They're not out of the box, crazy ideas, just things that could be done if the proper business minded approach to cutting costs was taken before resorting to actual layoffs. Instead NOAA/Upper management jumps right to the best way to save money being cutting a position from the WFOs that is absolutely critical to our operations.

[das]

Missing from all this is an email from NOAA/HQ asking all of us at all the offices, local, regional, RFCs, SPC, HPC, NHC, etc. about ways that we can save money on things that are luxuries that we don't really need in these tough budget times. Such as basic satellite tv packages on the SADs, even though the network connection is slow, we could still just stream tv coverage from a website onto the SAD. Or iphones/blackberries/ipads provided to some in regional offices, which I've heard does occur. Redoubling efforts to print less legacy stuff. Moving NWR Transmitter maintenance from a contract with Intec (http://www.gao.gov/10/fl0049567.php- $7.8 million according to this 1996 GAO doc) to the ETs we already have. These are just some options to save a lot of money that might already add up to or even surpass the savings from the "ITO Efficiency" plan. They're not out of the box, crazy ideas, just things that could be done if the proper business minded approach to cutting costs was taken before resorting to actual layoffs. Instead NOAA/Upper management jumps right to the best way to save money being cutting a position from the WFOs that is absolutely critical to our operations.

I'll preface a comment with a fact: I am a scientist working as a federal government executive. Here's the comment: It is typically a bad idea for scientists to act as federal government executives. Heading an R&D org or a technical ops group, fine. Doing business process optimization or cost savings analysis and implementation, not so much...

[isohume]

I'll preface a comment with a fact: I am a scientist working as a federal government executive. Here's the comment: It is typically a bad idea for scientists to act as federal government executives. Heading an R&D org or a technical ops group, fine. Doing business process optimization or cost savings analysis and implementation, not so much...

I firmly agree with this. Just as ex-Air force and ex-Navy brass don't generally make good directors of the NOAA/NWS. Dr. Sullivan is trying to bring a model of ITO efficiency over to the NWS that had some success at NASA (where she worked before). The problem is, the NWS is wholly different structurally and mission-wise than NASA.

[isohume]

The latest befuddles of Dr. Jane on Capitol Hill are disturbing...

When Dr. Lubchenco was questioned about the ITO positions and asked, “what are they responsible for – how do they work?” She was unable to answer the question. Our General Council was embarrassed for her since many of her answers to the Subcommittee was, “I don’t know”.

Also...NOAA's recent recommendation that the severe outbreak be given credit to NOAA, not the NWS, is also well in the disturbing realm.

"Would you please change headline to: The hard work *NOAA * did Thu through Sat on the large severe weather outbreak...We need to 'just say NOAA'..."

It's about time the NWS separates themselves from NOAA. Too bad we don't have a director with any skill or balls.

[Rainshadow]

The latest befuddles of Dr. Jane on Capitol Hill are disturbing...

When Dr. Lubchenco was questioned about the ITO positions and asked, “what are they responsible for – how do they work?” She was unable to answer the question. Our General Council was embarrassed for her since many of her answers to the Subcommittee was, “I don’t know”.

Also...NOAA's recent recommendation that the severe outbreak be given credit to NOAA, not the NWS, is also well in the disturbing realm.

"Would you please change headline to: The hard work *NOAA * did Thu through Sat on the large severe weather outbreak...We need to 'just say NOAA'..."

It's about time the NWS separates themselves from NOAA. Too bad we don't have a director with any skill or balls.

She also thought our deterministic forecasts go out 5 days and not 7 as it has been for the last dozen years or so, she contradicted herself by testifying that budget cuts would not reduce the effectiveness of the tsunami warnings, then a committee member confronted her with NOAA’s own budget submission that states “(tsunami) warnings may extend to a larger area than necessary and for a longer time.”

Then the committee chairman said that he had recently traveled to Africa and asked Dr. Lubchenco whether the NWS was providing any famine forecasts to Africa to aid in the deprivation he had seen there. She said that the NWS does not. In fact, the NWS’s Climate Prediction Center has an entire unit dedicated to doing just that- the Famine Early Warning System:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/

[Cory]

Lubchenco Faces Bipartisan Criticism From

House Appropriations Committee Over ITO Cuts –

And Answers “I don’t know” to Virtually Every

Question about NWS Operations.

(March 21, 2012) NOAA’s plan to eliminate 122 ITO positions came under attack during a hearing on NOAA’s FY 13 budget request on Tuesday, March 20. The Chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, Frank Wolf (R-VA) and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee (most senior Democrat) Chaka Fattah (D-PA) both expressed their objections to eliminating the ITOs during their questioning of NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco.

Chairman Wolf began his questioning of Dr. Lubchenco by saying he was concerned about the elimination of the ITOs and asked her, “What are they responsible for; how do they work?” She was unable to answer the question but responded instead that the agency’s plan “takes advantage of new technology that is available in a more uniform and reliable fashion.” Chairman Wolf then asked Lubchenco, “How many personnel are there at each WFO?” She responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf asked how many meteorologists there are at each forecast office, and if they work around-the-clock shifts? Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Chairman Wolf asked how long it would take to deploy the remote mobile ITO teams to a WFO where there was a problem. Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked where the ITO teams will be stationed. Lubchenco responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked how long would it take for the remote ITO teams to get to a WFO? Lubchenco replied, “I don’t know – but there will be better and more reliable service” than there is now.

Chairman Wolf also criticized NOAA’s plans to reduce funding to maintain the buoys used for tsunami warnings. When Dr. Lubchenco assured the committee that this would not reduce the effectiveness of the tsunami warnings, Chairman Wolf confronted her with NOAA’s own budget submission that states “warnings may extend to a larger area than necessary and for a longer time.” At one point Chairman Wolf told Lubchenco, “your folks" (the NWS employees) did a great job with the early warning of the severe tornado outbreak. She said that the advance notice was due to the weather satellites!

The senior Democrat on the committee, Rep. Fattah, told Dr. Lubchenco that he “shared the Chairman’s concerns” about eliminating the ITOs, especially in light of the recent outbreak of severe weather. Rep. Fattah said that he was “very interested in how to avoid these cuts” and that they were unwise in both “substance and symbolism” because they were sending a message that the federal government doesn’t care about the impact of severe weather. “I am still concerned about what it suggests – the idea that at this time we would be removing local people.” At a loss for words, Dr. Lubchenco responded, “I hear what you are saying.”

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) also urged Dr. Lubchenco to reconsider her opposition to the creation of a Caribbean Tsunami Warning Center in Puerto Rico, explaining that the residents of these U.S territories do not feel safe relying on tsunami warnings issued from Alaska and Hawaii. Lubchenco said a Caribbean Center was not necessary because geographic proximity is not necessary to issue a prompt or reliable warning. Rep. Serrano then asked "if that was the case, why did NOAA put warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska in the first place?" Jane's answer? You guessed it. "I don't know."

As the hearing was closing, Chairman Wolf said that he had recently traveled to Africa and asked Dr. Lubchenco whether the NWS was providing any famine forecasts to Africa to aid in the deprivation he had seen there. Exhibiting further ignorance of the NWS’s operations (after three years on the job) she said that the NWS does not. In fact, the NWS’s Climate Prediction Center has an entire unit dedicated to doing just that- the Famine Early Warning System. See:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa

Press release from: http://www.nwseo.org/

[MN Transplant]

Seems like the game is being played well. Target something for cuts that you don't really want to cut, make sure there is enough outcry, get congress to bump up your appropriation.

[isohume]

Lubchenco Faces Bipartisan Criticism From

House Appropriations Committee Over ITO Cuts –

And Answers “I don’t know” to Virtually Every

Question about NWS Operations.

(March 21, 2012) NOAA’s plan to eliminate 122 ITO positions came under attack during a hearing on NOAA’s FY 13 budget request on Tuesday, March 20. The Chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, Frank Wolf (R-VA) and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee (most senior Democrat) Chaka Fattah (D-PA) both expressed their objections to eliminating the ITOs during their questioning of NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco.

Chairman Wolf began his questioning of Dr. Lubchenco by saying he was concerned about the elimination of the ITOs and asked her, “What are they responsible for; how do they work?” She was unable to answer the question but responded instead that the agency’s plan “takes advantage of new technology that is available in a more uniform and reliable fashion.” Chairman Wolf then asked Lubchenco, “How many personnel are there at each WFO?” She responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf asked how many meteorologists there are at each forecast office, and if they work around-the-clock shifts? Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Chairman Wolf asked how long it would take to deploy the remote mobile ITO teams to a WFO where there was a problem. Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked where the ITO teams will be stationed. Lubchenco responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked how long would it take for the remote ITO teams to get to a WFO? Lubchenco replied, “I don’t know – but there will be better and more reliable service” than there is now.

Chairman Wolf also criticized NOAA’s plans to reduce funding to maintain the buoys used for tsunami warnings. When Dr. Lubchenco assured the committee that this would not reduce the effectiveness of the tsunami warnings, Chairman Wolf confronted her with NOAA’s own budget submission that states “warnings may extend to a larger area than necessary and for a longer time.” At one point Chairman Wolf told Lubchenco, “your folks" (the NWS employees) did a great job with the early warning of the severe tornado outbreak. She said that the advance notice was due to the weather satellites!

The senior Democrat on the committee, Rep. Fattah, told Dr. Lubchenco that he “shared the Chairman’s concerns” about eliminating the ITOs, especially in light of the recent outbreak of severe weather. Rep. Fattah said that he was “very interested in how to avoid these cuts” and that they were unwise in both “substance and symbolism” because they were sending a message that the federal government doesn’t care about the impact of severe weather. “I am still concerned about what it suggests – the idea that at this time we would be removing local people.” At a loss for words, Dr. Lubchenco responded, “I hear what you are saying.”

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) also urged Dr. Lubchenco to reconsider her opposition to the creation of a Caribbean Tsunami Warning Center in Puerto Rico, explaining that the residents of these U.S territories do not feel safe relying on tsunami warnings issued from Alaska and Hawaii. Lubchenco said a Caribbean Center was not necessary because geographic proximity is not necessary to issue a prompt or reliable warning. Rep. Serrano then asked "if that was the case, why did NOAA put warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska in the first place?" Jane's answer? You guessed it. "I don't know."

As the hearing was closing, Chairman Wolf said that he had recently traveled to Africa and asked Dr. Lubchenco whether the NWS was providing any famine forecasts to Africa to aid in the deprivation he had seen there. Exhibiting further ignorance of the NWS’s operations (after three years on the job) she said that the NWS does not. In fact, the NWS’s Climate Prediction Center has an entire unit dedicated to doing just that- the Famine Early Warning System. See:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa

Press release from: http://www.nwseo.org/

Lol! Wow, I haven't seen this in it's entirety yet. Is there anything she does know? Man.

[Cory]

Seems like the game is being played well. Target something for cuts that you don't really want to cut, make sure there is enough outcry, get congress to bump up your appropriation.

The Deputy NOAA Administrator threw a fit and walked out of a union meeting when they refused to help her come up with a plan to fire ITOs, so I don't know if this is just the usual method of getting budget attention.

[isohume]

The Deputy NOAA Administrator threw a fit and walked out of a union meeting when they refused to help her come up with a plan to fire ITOs, so I don't know if this is just the usual method of getting budget attention.

I think it's more the method of incompetency.

[wxmeddler]

This news is all sad... and pitiful. I feel sorry for anyone that has to work under Dr. Jane and Dr. Sullivan

[BeauDodson]

We were told today that our local office will no longer survey EF0 or EF1 events - it will be left up to emergency management or others to report that information - to send the NWS their opinion on the damage - track information - photos if they have them.

This is likely going to hurt the official climatological tornado stats.

There just isn't enough money for the NWS to do the number of surveys they have done in the past.

They are asking local officials to help with their storm surveys. Some counties will help and others may not. It will depend on the emergency manager and some counties have managers that are willing and wanting to work with the NWS - then you have other counties that never show up for any conferences or outreach.

[AtticaFanatica]

Too bad, since a large number of EF0 and EF1s are actually EF2 and EF3's.

[Rainshadow]

We were told today that our local office will no longer survey EF0 or EF1 events - it will be left up to emergency management or others to report that information - to send the NWS their opinion on the damage.

This is likely going to hurt the official climatological tornado stats.

There just isn't enough money for the NWS to do the number of surveys they have done in the past.

They are asking local officials to help with their storm surveys. Some counties will help and others may not. It will depend on the emergency manager and some counties have managers that are willing and wanting to work with the NWS - then you have other counties that never show up for any conferences or outreach.

Well this becomes defacto backdoor conops if more and more of these outreach and scientific endeavors are no longer done as standard operational procedures.

[BeauDodson]

Also not sure how this will impact FAR scores. FAR scores may be hurt because there may never be verification. Unsure. Certainly is a concern for those interested in that topic

[isohume]

Also not sure how this will impact FAR scores. FAR scores may be hurt because there may never be verification. Unsure. Certainly is a concern for those interested in that topic

Apparently the media is wholly interested in that topic. If the tor FAR gets worse from non-surveying, and it will, then it will be showcased by the media.

[Rainshadow]

Also not sure how this will impact FAR scores. FAR scores may be hurt because there may never be verification. Unsure. Certainly is a concern for those interested in that topic

For the research community I can't see satisfaction in what will become defacto either missing tornado events or improperly rated tornadoes. Not a knock on any of our EM's; if I was asked to work in a staging area tomorrow, no way I could do as good a job as any of our emergency responders.

[B-Rent]

Simple. EM gives every storm a EF2 rating, then the NWS comes to verify.

[Cory]

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee takes NOAA to the Woodshed-

Saves ITO jobs

(April 17, 2012) Today, the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee approved, by a vote of 17 to 1, a FY13 funding bill that rejects the NWS's request to eliminate ITOs at 122 WFOs. The bill also strips NOAA of all responsibility for acquisition and management of the nation's weather satellites, although NOAA will continue to have responsibility for operation of the satellites once in orbit. Subcommittee Chair Mikulski explained at today's subcommittee meeting that there was bi-partisan agreement to strip NOAA of its responsibility to manage satellite development and procurement because of NOAA leadership's mismanagement. Senator Mikulski praised the work of the NWS at today's hearing at the same time she criticized NOAA management.

The bill approved by the Subcommittee funds NOAA at $3.4 billion for next year, a reduction of $1.47 billion. According to a press release issued by the Subcommittee, "the bill does not support proposed cuts to NOAA's operations that would hurt local communities, such as eliminating local weather forecast staff and reducing the Tsunami Warning Network. Instead, the committee finds financial savings by consolidating management offices and reducing government overhead. The bill transfers funding needed for weather satellite acquisition from NOAA to NASA, realizing a savings of $117 million in FY 13."

Further details on the bill will not be available until it is approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee, which is expected to meet on Thursday. The bill must then be approved by the full Senate. The House Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee will "mark-up" or vote on its version of the funding bill on Thursday as well. Whatever version of the funding bill that is eventually enacted by the House will later have to be reconciled with the version approved by the Senate before it is submitted to the President.

[MN Transplant]

Seems like the game is being played well. Target something for cuts that you don't really want to cut, make sure there is enough outcry, get congress to bump up your appropriation.

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee takes NOAA to the Woodshed-

Saves ITO jobs

(April 17, 2012) Today, the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee approved, by a vote of 17 to 1, a FY13 funding bill that rejects the NWS's request to eliminate ITOs at 122 WFOs. The bill also strips NOAA of all responsibility for acquisition and management of the nation's weather satellites, although NOAA will continue to have responsibility for operation of the satellites once in orbit. Subcommittee Chair Mikulski explained at today's subcommittee meeting that there was bi-partisan agreement to strip NOAA of its responsibility to manage satellite development and procurement because of NOAA leadership's mismanagement. Senator Mikulski praised the work of the NWS at today's hearing at the same time she criticized NOAA management.

The bill approved by the Subcommittee funds NOAA at $3.4 billion for next year, a reduction of $1.47 billion. According to a press release issued by the Subcommittee, "the bill does not support proposed cuts to NOAA's operations that would hurt local communities, such as eliminating local weather forecast staff and reducing the Tsunami Warning Network. Instead, the committee finds financial savings by consolidating management offices and reducing government overhead. The bill transfers funding needed for weather satellite acquisition from NOAA to NASA, realizing a savings of $117 million in FY 13."

Further details on the bill will not be available until it is approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee, which is expected to meet on Thursday. The bill must then be approved by the full Senate. The House Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee will "mark-up" or vote on its version of the funding bill on Thursday as well. Whatever version of the funding bill that is eventually enacted by the House will later have to be reconciled with the version approved by the Senate before it is submitted to the President.

[Cory]

This was not an outcry budget maneuver. As pointed out before, upper NOAA management was hell bent on firing NWS IT Officers and got pissed off when the employee's union wouldn't help them. The employees union lobbied Congress to slap down NOAA, which appears to have worked. The IT cuts were caused by a Department of Commerce instruction to reduce IT infrastructure spending, which apparently still remains in place. They will still have to find somewhere else to cut that money now that they can't fire ITOs, and will have to cut money in management to avoid cutting tsunami warning stuff, profilers, etc.

They didn't get a bump--they lost money and responsibility in this decision.

[OceanStWx]

Too bad, since a large number of EF0 and EF1s are actually EF2 and EF3's.

Could not agree with this more.

The rating system may not be perfect, but it is important work.

[johnc]

Chairman Wolf began his questioning of Dr. Lubchenco by saying he was concerned about the elimination of the ITOs and asked her, “What are they responsible for; how do they work?” She was unable to answer the question but responded instead that the agency’s plan “takes advantage of new technology that is available in a more uniform and reliable fashion.” Chairman Wolf then asked Lubchenco, “How many personnel are there at each WFO?” She responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf asked how many meteorologists there are at each forecast office, and if they work around-the-clock shifts? Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Chairman Wolf asked how long it would take to deploy the remote mobile ITO teams to a WFO where there was a problem. Lubchenco’s answer, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked where the ITO teams will be stationed. Lubchenco responded, “I don’t know.” Wolf then asked how long would it take for the remote ITO teams to get to a WFO? Lubchenco replied, “I don’t know – but there will be better and more reliable service” than there is now.

This reminds me of a conversation I often had with a boss.

"Hey John, what do you know?"

"I don't know anything!"

"You'll go straight to the top..."

Sad, but true.

I'm quite surprised to see that the entirety of the NWS operates on less than a billion a year. That is pretty embarrassing when you consider how many billions they can cough up for all those pet projects that have no business in a federal budget to begin with and provide markedly less value (to be polite about it). $3 per person per year is pretty good value for the security of knowing when your house is going to be blown away by a tornado. I have to pay more than that in tolls when I take the bridge in to Filthadelphia.

If it's any consolation -- and I know it's not -- you might be interested in knowing that many corporations have slammed a full gallon of the "cut costs at all costs" kool-aid, so the misery of dealing with moronic reasoning is widespread. My former employer -- which typically did about $3 billion / yr in profit -- put a tub of salt in front of the main doors and told us to salt the parking lot ourselves as we walked to our cars. And as a software engineer I often found myself struggling to effectively accomplish my tasks without a working computer. But that kind of contradiction seemed to be lost on management, where pinching pennies has become the new American managing style. There was "no money in the budget" for nice-to-haves like computers.

[isohume]

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee takes NOAA to the Woodshed-

Saves ITO jobs

(April 17, 2012) Today, the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee approved, by a vote of 17 to 1, a FY13 funding bill that rejects the NWS's request to eliminate ITOs at 122 WFOs. The bill also strips NOAA of all responsibility for acquisition and management of the nation's weather satellites, although NOAA will continue to have responsibility for operation of the satellites once in orbit. Subcommittee Chair Mikulski explained at today's subcommittee meeting that there was bi-partisan agreement to strip NOAA of its responsibility to manage satellite development and procurement because of NOAA leadership's mismanagement. Senator Mikulski praised the work of the NWS at today's hearing at the same time she criticized NOAA management.

The bill approved by the Subcommittee funds NOAA at $3.4 billion for next year, a reduction of $1.47 billion. According to a press release issued by the Subcommittee, "the bill does not support proposed cuts to NOAA's operations that would hurt local communities, such as eliminating local weather forecast staff and reducing the Tsunami Warning Network. Instead, the committee finds financial savings by consolidating management offices and reducing government overhead. The bill transfers funding needed for weather satellite acquisition from NOAA to NASA, realizing a savings of $117 million in FY 13."

Further details on the bill will not be available until it is approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee, which is expected to meet on Thursday. The bill must then be approved by the full Senate. The House Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee will "mark-up" or vote on its version of the funding bill on Thursday as well. Whatever version of the funding bill that is eventually enacted by the House will later have to be reconciled with the version approved by the Senate before it is submitted to the President.

This is good news and let's see if it pans out. I hope it's not too late to save our ITO. He has a lot of bids out and has had 3 job offers that he's turned down already.

Let's hope too that Dr. Jane gets fired for this.

I noticed the NWS Town Hall Meeting scheduled for today has been postponed. Hmmm...coincidence? Lol...Hayes needs to go too.

[MN Transplant]

The problem here is that the Senate is adhering to the budget guidelines set out during the debt ceiling debacle a year ago. However, the House wants to ignore that and cut further, so nothing is set. With the elections coming up, we'll probably go into a quite long CR. Again.

[isohume]

This was not an outcry budget maneuver. As pointed out before, upper NOAA management was hell bent on firing NWS IT Officers and got pissed off when the employee's union wouldn't help them. The employees union lobbied Congress to slap down NOAA, which appears to have worked. The IT cuts were caused by a Department of Commerce instruction to reduce IT infrastructure spending, which apparently still remains in place. They will still have to find somewhere else to cut that money now that they can't fire ITOs, and will have to cut money in management to avoid cutting tsunami warning stuff, profilers, etc.

They didn't get a bump--they lost money and responsibility in this decision.

SOOs. I'm serious.