Help wanted: National Weather Service seeks financial chief to institute “employee reductions”

[Ellinwood]

I have never seen an argument where someone like Riptide will undermine the NWS and actually have facts and data to support their argument. Such baseless arguments are an insult to those who work in the NWS.

On top of forecasting, the NWS also launches weather balloons (which is important for model initialization amongst other things), collects data, performs quality control on said data, issues warnings that save lives and property, is available for consulting 24/7, raises public awareness of the weather, monitors and maintains the WSR-88Ds, performs their own research, develops local modeling, etc.

All of the above things add value to the field and to the community at large on a daily basis, and they do it all for a very small percentage of your tax dollars. Be thankful we have such an organization that does such a wide range of weather services, does it WELL and makes it all publicly available.

[Ellinwood]

Sir, I appreciate your insight. I disagreed with the fact that people were upset about the "employee reductions" when it makes sense to me. NWS has proven to be valuable but is not the end-all factor in the weather enthusiast and public community. My opinions may be slightly biased because I am very anti-fed on all fronts.

I agree that NWS is a bonus department and am thankful that it exists for the utilization of the average citizen. One big point that makes the argument invalid overall is that the NWS budget is less than 1% of federal spending, so getting rid of it would be irrelevant.

You have yet to mention, with any sort of support for your argument, how NWS employee reductions would work. Any sort of reduction and/or consolidation would be detrimental to a government branch that is already running with the minimal staffing needed to maintain quality and accuracy. Just saying "I think the NWS could be smaller" is not a proper argument. If it makes so much sense to you, then feel free to enlighten us with the evidence to support how the NWS can operate and maintain the same quality with a reduced workforce.

EDIT: My previous post was mainly to illustrate just how much the NWS does and WHY we need as many mets as we do to keep the NWS running at their current capacity.

[isohume]

You have yet to mention, with any sort of support for your argument, how NWS employee reductions would work. Any sort of reduction and/or consolidation would be detrimental to a government branch that is already running with the minimal staffing needed to maintain quality and accuracy. Just saying "I think the NWS could be smaller" is not a proper argument. If it makes so much sense to you, then feel free to enlighten us with the evidence to support how the NWS can operate and maintain the same quality with a reduced workforce.

EDIT: My previous post was mainly to illustrate just how much the NWS does and WHY we need as many mets as we do to keep the NWS running at their current capacity.

Serious, take it from me, just stop now. He's had his 15 mins of fame.

[MGorse]

It's not a claim, i'm just downplaying the NWS. The general public does not even look at their forecasts. The private sector has much more influence and is of greater importance. For example, the general public actually supported TWC's naming of winter storms.

The bolded text is not true. If the general public does not even look at the NWS forecasts, then why does my office get calls every day on our public line asking about the forecast? Why especially when a significant storm is coming, our public line is even busier and my offices Facebook page has questions pertaining to our forecasts?

Nice try, but next time you may want to do some research before making incorrect posts.

[Ger]

Lets cut half the staff of the NWS and use the savings for a fresh war the Middle East, the last two of which have cost untold billions ( trillions?)

[ago4snow]

There are wage laws that place mandates on federal employers, unrealistically large wages is one of the many sources of the massive national debt. "Employee reductions" are unpleasant but meteorology is a constantly evolving field and now requires less manual input from forecasters because of computer models and automated systems. For me, the NWS is just another bloated governmental department. Meteorology as a career is nice but is not required to validate your passion for the weather. I was considering a career in the met field but i'm content with pursuing something else while keeping weather as personal adventure or hobby.

This is just following the general trend and decline of meteorology as a profitable scientific field, people shouldn't get upset about it and especially, not ask for higher wages.

Since you profess to be concerned about federal spending, I would think you would be interested in some common sense solutions to the problem. Right now the government spends enormous amounts of money in producing and launching weather satellites, running models on supercomputers and placing buoys at sea. After great federal expenditure, the information is then simply given away for free. Private companies and individuals then take this taxpayer investment and in many cases make large sums of money for themselves without the need to invest in anything more than a college degree, and in some cases, maybe not even that. Imagine how profitable an automobile producer would be if they didn’t have to pay for the materials that go into the final product.

An easy solution to your concerns is to simply charge private companies for the hardware and information that the taxpayer has provided. After all, don’t the Europeans charge for some of their weather models? We could expand that idea considerably and make the NWS a quite profitable concern. While I really don’t think that would be the best approach, it would certainly be more desirable than this irrational anti-government approach.

[Thunder Road]

So Riptide's evidence is that he thinks there should be no government at all and that's that. Good evidence....

fyp

[Ed Lizard]

1) They may not be meant for public consumption, but I suspect a lot of people read the TAFs discussion, and, if there is a fire weather discussion in the AFD, that as well. And the SPC fire weather outlook in season

2) When AccuWx or somebody can run NCEP/EMC and all the models and associated model products in house, and can operate remote sensors (satellites, NOAA databuoys, who knows what), well, I still wouldn't want them doing it because I suspect the model products I can now see on .edu, .gov and .mil domains won't be free. Bad enough having to pay AccuWx to see 6 hour forecast products from the Euro.. If AccuWx paid for satellite launches and operations, would all the free imagery NESDIS/SSD provides now still be available? Radar products? And finally, do we want the hype machines at any of the big commercial weather services (Wxbell, AccuWx, TWC) issuing official forecasts and warnings for tropical cyclones? And I can't imagine a private forecast service operating a fleet of WP-3Ds, WC-130J or G-IVs. I don;t see TWC tasking a plan of the day for the 53rd. A government agency working with DoD resources is one thing, TWC ordering flights is another. And as if the HDOBs would be free.

I may accept the limitations of a 24 hour time display Euro without QPF and assorted wind fields (like 10 meters sustained and max 6 hour gusts) not found for free, although it sure was cool having that during Sandy. I get kind of a plankowner rate, being an AccuWx PPV subscriber back from when they first rolled it out.

But NWS is one of those things, like an Army and Navy, that is best left to the Feds. And I don't think they are a significant factor in our unsustainable deficits.

[ohleary]

lol

It just makes the NWS more irrelevant...

Yeah, irrelevant. Like the GFS, NAM, RAP, CFS, HWRF, GFDL, HIRESW, WAVE, RTOFS, RTMA, GEFS, SREF, ... nobody in the general public gets anything from them.

And irrelevant...like the NHC, SPC, HPC...good point.

[Eskimo Joe]

They don't gain anything because the general public does not look at them. I don't see how you can support anything associated with the federal government. I'm guessing you are a federal employee.

I have a problem with this. Emergency Management and the Fire Service uses fire weather forecasts daily. TAFs assist our airport operations (county government owns one of the 15 airports in the county), Maryland State Police uses TAFs to enhance their Trooper program (helicopter for medi-vac / search and rescue). Just because you don't use these products, doesn't mean they are worthless.

[sauss06]

It's not a claim, i'm just downplaying the NWS. The general public does not even look at their forecasts. The private sector has much more influence and is of greater importance. For example, the general public actually supported TWC's naming of winter storms.

every sportsman i know, hunters, trappers and fisherman look at their forecasts. as well as the athletic director and coaches at most high schools i deal with.

[Ed Lizard]

As an aside, I became aware of this when TWC substituted their own forecasts during "Local on the Eights", HGX produces better forecasts, and there is no comparison during 'Nowcast' situations.

[Riptide]

Since you profess to be concerned about federal spending, I would think you would be interested in some common sense solutions to the problem. Right now the government spends enormous amounts of money in producing and launching weather satellites, running models on supercomputers and placing buoys at sea. After great federal expenditure, the information is then simply given away for free. Private companies and individuals then take this taxpayer investment and in many cases make large sums of money for themselves without the need to invest in anything more than a college degree, and in some cases, maybe not even that. Imagine how profitable an automobile producer would be if they didn’t have to pay for the materials that go into the final product.

An easy solution to your concerns is to simply charge private companies for the hardware and information that the taxpayer has provided. After all, don’t the Europeans charge for some of their weather models? We could expand that idea considerably and make the NWS a quite profitable concern. While I really don’t think that would be the best approach, it would certainly be more desirable than this irrational anti-government approach.

Yes, well. It's different because I think the personal forecaster is very valuable, also the many private firms who bring something different to the table. Being a weather enthusiast, you know what the weather is doing and can act accordingly. Americanwx itself is privately funded and has made great progress. It doesn't matter if the NWS gets employee cuts or goes into oblivion because as far as I can tell, it's getting the end of the stick. It's reaching out, trying to lick the last vestiges of government funding off the ground just like everyone else in this country. More than 50% of the population is receiving some form of federal welfare as of 2012. Granted, most of this is educational financial aid. I'm going off-topic now but some posters realized what I was getting at. I have the right to be anti-government, if not; it will just reinforce the idea that this country has gone past the point of no return economically, morally, and intellectually.

[am19psu]

Yes, well. It's different because I think the personal forecaster is very valuable, also the many private firms who bring something different to the table. Being a weather enthusiast, you know what the weather is doing and can act accordingly. Americanwx itself is privately funded and has made great progress. It doesn't matter if the NWS gets employee cuts or goes into oblivion because as far as I can tell, it's getting the end of the stick. It's reaching out, trying to lick the last vestiges of government funding off the ground just like everyone else in this country. More than 50% of the population is receiving some form of federal welfare as of 2012. Granted, most of this is educational financial aid. I'm going off-topic now but some posters realized what I was getting at. I have the right to be anti-government, if not; it will just reinforce the idea that this country has gone past the point of no return economically, morally, and intellectually.

Hey, when did this thread become a PR thread? Oh, it didn't? Then maybe we shouldn't make it one either.

[Riptide]

Yeah, irrelevant. Like the GFS, NAM, RAP, CFS, HWRF, GFDL, HIRESW, WAVE, RTOFS, RTMA, GEFS, SREF, ... nobody in the general public gets anything from them.

And irrelevant...like the NHC, SPC, HPC...good point.

I did not take this into account and thought they were all separate departments. Please forgive my ignorance. This data is necessary and I see your point. Private individuals and companies need this data for sure....

[isohume]

Yes, well. It's different because I think the personal forecaster is very valuable, also the many private firms who bring something different to the table. Being a weather enthusiast, you know what the weather is doing and can act accordingly. Americanwx itself is privately funded and has made great progress. It doesn't matter if the NWS gets employee cuts or goes into oblivion because as far as I can tell, it's getting the end of the stick. It's reaching out, trying to lick the last vestiges of government funding off the ground just like everyone else in this country. More than 50% of the population is receiving some form of federal welfare as of 2012. Granted, most of this is educational financial aid. I'm going off-topic now but some posters realized what I was getting at. I have the right to be anti-government, if not; it will just reinforce the idea that this country has gone past the point of no return economically, morally, and intellectually.

I'd have to agree with this.

I did not take this into account and thought they were all separate departments. Please forgive my ignorance. This data is necessary and I see your point. Private individuals and companies need this data for sure....

Lol! Jesus.

[Bozart]

Please forgive my ignorance.

No.

[JamieOber]

The idea that the public doesn't look at NWS forecasts has already been debunked, but here's more proof that riptide just makes **** up:

http://www.alexa.com...nfo/weather.gov

Weather.gov has a very high Alexa rank - it ranks 185 in the US, which means they get a lot of visitors.

All you are doing here, riptide, is demonstrating that you can't be trusted because you make stuff up.

[Riptide]

The idea that the public doesn't look at NWS forecasts has already been debunked, but here's more proof that riptide just makes **** up:

http://www.alexa.com...nfo/weather.gov

Weather.gov has a very high Alexa rank - it ranks 185 in the US, which means they get a lot of visitors.

All you are doing here, riptide, is demonstrating that you can't be trusted because you make stuff up.

That is a very interesting increase in website visits during and before Hurricane Sandy.

[blizzard1024]

My opinion is that no WFOs will close. The WeatherReady Nation plan keys on the importance of building local relationships with EMs etc. Also NWS's budget problems

are labor-related... not facility related. 70% of the local warnings and forecasts line item budget is labor which is deemed unsustainable. We will need facilities where

we have radars so why close the office when we need to keep ET staff there?? Makes no sense. I could see the number of forecasters etc dropping in offices and

because they want to reduce labor costs. That means do more with less people which will be hard. This could also make it harder for graduates to get into NWS. We shall see

what comes of our next reorganization plan. Let's hope it is done with the customers in mind and NWS employees. But times are tough so who knows....

[ohleary]

I did not take this into account and thought they were all separate departments. Please forgive my ignorance. This data is necessary and I see your point. Private individuals and companies need this data for sure....

Just do a little research before spouting extreme views.

[CT Rain]

My opinion is that no WFOs will close. The WeatherReady Nation plan keys on the importance of building local relationships with EMs etc. Also NWS's budget problems

are labor-related... not facility related. 70% of the local warnings and forecasts line item budget is labor which is deemed unsustainable. We will need facilities where

we have radars so why close the office when we need to keep ET staff there?? Makes no sense. I could see the number of forecasters etc dropping in offices and

because they want to reduce labor costs. That means do more with less people which will be hard. This could also make it harder for graduates to get into NWS. We shall see

what comes of our next reorganization plan. Let's hope it is done with the customers in mind and NWS employees. But times are tough so who knows....

Are there services the NWS supplies that could be eliminated with sole focus moving to warnings/watches and adverse wx?

I don't think that's a good idea, personally, but is that the game plan with cutting labor costs?

For the cost... the NWS provides such an invaluable service to the public through their work with the media and state/local emergency management I can't believe they're seriously considering slashing costs.

[isohume]

Are there services the NWS supplies that could be eliminated with sole focus moving to warnings/watches and adverse wx?

I don't think that's a good idea, personally, but is that the game plan with cutting labor costs?

For the cost... the NWS provides such an invaluable service to the public through their work with the media and state/local emergency management I can't believe they're seriously considering slashing costs.

What plan? Any plan to reduce the workforce would have to be coordinated with Congress and the NWSEO. There is nothing in the works on these levels and that announcement was an oversight by the NWS, at least that's what they claim.

[isohume]

My opinion is that no WFOs will close. The WeatherReady Nation plan keys on the importance of building local relationships with EMs etc. Also NWS's budget problems

are labor-related... not facility related. 70% of the local warnings and forecasts line item budget is labor which is deemed unsustainable. We will need facilities where

we have radars so why close the office when we need to keep ET staff there?? Makes no sense. I could see the number of forecasters etc dropping in offices and

because they want to reduce labor costs. That means do more with less people which will be hard. This could also make it harder for graduates to get into NWS. We shall see

what comes of our next reorganization plan. Let's hope it is done with the customers in mind and NWS employees. But times are tough so who knows....

The only way I could see this happen is if they got rid of the two forecasters on every shift rule and got rid of focal points, outreach, research, etc. But then you'd run into the issue of pulling folks in on OT when the weather acts up overnight, etc. Which would then burden the day shift. The current 10 forecasters per office to cover shifts 24/7 is pretty much a skeleton crew. They'd have to cut management and regions, but I somehow don't see that happening.

Until they can come up with a good plan, I don't see any sigfnt changes being made. Even if they do it will take some time, like modernization, which took over 10 years. I recall the CWSUs were supposed to be consolidated years ago. That never happened as they couldn't get it by the NWSEO nor the FAA's needs.

[CT Rain]

What plan? Any plan to reduce the workforce would have to be coordinated with Congress and the NWSEO. There is nothing in the works on these levels and that announcement was an oversight by the NWS, at least that's what they claim.

Oh yeah not saying there is a plan at least publicly but I'm wondering where you would even cut from? Most offices are "tightly" staffed from what I can tell as it is I'm not sure you can reduce staffing without cutting services of some kind. What services get cut?

[isohume]

Oh yeah not saying there is a plan at least publicly but I'm wondering where you would even cut from? Most offices are "tightly" staffed from what I can tell as it is I'm not sure you can reduce staffing without cutting services of some kind. What services get cut?

Who knows? There are probably many different combinations possible. I imagine outreach would take a hit. Maybe they'd outsource el-techs and COOP. I could see regions being consolidated or removed all together. I can't see the USFS or the FAA programs being affected much. That'd take many concessions on our customers part and affect safety directly.

[CT Rain]

Who knows? There are probably many different combinations possible. I imagine outreach would take a hit. Maybe they'd outsource el-techs and COOP. I could see regions being consolidated or removed all together. I can't see the USFS or the FAA programs being affected much. That'd take many concessions on our customers part and affect safety directly.

It's hard to believe after the last several years of weather disasters the conversation isn't about increasing the NWS budget.

[isohume]

It's hard to believe after the last several years of weather disasters the conversation isn't about increasing the NWS budget.

Yeah, until NOAA stops appointing ex-Air Force generals to be directors, the NWS will suffer, I believe. The past couple directors have seen Air Force weather go to a major hub system and they think it can work for the NWS. That's fine for the Air Force as they only have one customer (themselves) and only one style of product (aviation). The NWS is more complex and has varying functions and wholly differing customer needs. The NWS needs an innovative and knowledgeable director from within to stand up to NOAA and Congress and to not always say "yes Sir".

[BillB]

The only way I could see this happen is if they got rid of the two forecasters on every shift rule and got rid of focal points, outreach, research, etc. But then you'd run into the issue of pulling folks in on OT when the weather acts up overnight, etc. Which would then burden the day shift. The current 10 forecasters per office to cover shifts 24/7 is pretty much a skeleton crew. They'd have to cut management and regions, but I somehow don't see that happening.

Until they can come up with a good plan, I don't see any sigfnt changes being made. Even if they do it will take some time, like modernization, which took over 10 years. I recall the CWSUs were supposed to be consolidated years ago. That never happened as they couldn't get it by the NWSEO nor the FAA's needs.

Lest we get fall into the trap of making statements without numbers, the complaint against the earlier poster, here are some numbers to back up isohume's points:

Requirements:

Number of hours in a week = 168. Number of people on at any one hour = 2. Therefore, number of person-hours per week to staff a NWS office with 2 people 24/7 = 336.

Available:

7 forecasters @ 40 hours per week = 280 person-hours/week (280-336 = -56 )

8 forecasters @ 40 hours per week = 320 person-hours/week (320-336 = -16 )

9 forecasters @ 40 hours per week = 360 person-hours/week (360-336 = +24 )

10 forecasters @ 40 hours per week = 400 person-hours/week (400-336 = +64 )

So double coverage fails for anything less than 9 forecasters. Even at 9 forecasters, the 24 hour surplus is not for just one person. It is spread across the entire staff. So 9 people have 3 shifts available each week for administrative work (verification, outreach including Skywarn, focal point work including meeting with partners), being sick,caring for a family member, taking annual leave, etc. If one person is sick for 3 days, your time budget is shot.

But don't we have an administrative crew to draw upon? Aren't there a Station Manager (MIC), a Science Officer (SOO), a Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM), and a Hydrologist? Maybe. There are a few offices that insist that one or more of these people will not work shifts. Even where they do, that doesn't eliminate the adminstrative work that THEY have to do. And then when additional staffing is needed for major weather that moves in...who is left?

So work overtime. After all, we are highly paid government employees. And we do work overtime as needed. After a month of constant overtime, people physically wear out and become more prone to sickness...which leads to sick leave and another gap in the schedule that must be filled.

[BayBreeze]

"The National Weather Service (NWS) has a key job opening: Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Buried in the announcement for this critical vacancy lies a surprising revelation: it seeks an applicant to carry out the task of reducing the NWS workforce."

http://www.washingto...75445_blog.html

i'll take this job. some of the mets-in-charge need to go. they are making boatloads of money and their work habits are questionable. actually i understand their jobs these days is not fun. they are the ones that have to find a way to this constant "do more with less" horse**** locally that has been in place since the reagan years.

how about the nws triple the cost for radar and satellite info? i mean, we got it. accu weather does not gather the data and maintain the equipment. get rid of janitorial services. we had a pic of bill read hanging in our kitchen in houston. it said "other duties as assigned". the pic was one of him putting a bucket under a leaky pipe under the sink.