The question I have with this is: Were the 72 documents that were rescinded covered in newer documents or incorporated into rules and regulations, therefore making them obsolete?

Working in state government and having issued OPS Memo's (which seems alot like the OSEP Memo's which cover much of the 72 documents), these documents often become outdated because the material only applies to a certain timeframe or the information in them was updated in either a new OPS Memo or was incorporated into another more formal document (for what I did it was either the Policy Handbook or State Plan).

We use the term "obsolete" instead of rescind, but every once in a while we go through all the old documents and "obsolete" anything that no longer applies or has been incorporated elsewhere.

It would be interesting to know if that is what happened here or if this is actually changing how this department operates.

The people thus far that have been assigned to the major US Departments seem more intent on destroying them than upholding the mandate of the Departments.  Sad. 

Rongone wrote:

 
That is a question that needs to be answered Brady and a reasonable person would expect the party responsible for the actions, in this case Betsy DeVos, to explain her reasoning and be available for comment to clarify the process she went through to make her determination to rescind those documents. Especially when parties that feel negatively affected by her actions and their advocates express concern or opposition to these actions and ask for clarification. For DeVos to refuse to respond to those requests demonstrates her disregard for the very people she is supposed to serve. That is inexcusable.

First you have to ask if Secretary DeVos even was aware these documents were rescinded (and that is not a knock on her).

On a state level, I can tell you that the Secretary for the Department of Human Services (which is the highest person within the department, like DeVos is with Dept. of Education) had no clue when we had Memorandum's and Policy Clarifications marked as obsolete.  For comparison, there were 3 levels of management between my position and that of the Secretary.  Taking a quick look at the org chart for the Department of Education, it appears there is probably at least that many levels between Secretary DeVos and the department within OSERS that rescinded these documents.

If this was just a normal rescinding of documents due to them being no longer relevant, I highly doubt she had any clue.

Now that the press has inquired, she should have someone from the press office prepare a response (which if they do will probably be handled by someone in the department who was involved with rescinding these documents.

Rongone wrote:

From my perspective, based upon my work experience, the ultimate responsibility for the operations and awareness of the effects of operational decisions, actions, and personnel rests with the manager/director/executive/government department secretary of the group. To suggest that this person is “clueless” about the goings on in areas of responsibility is no excuse. It only demonstrates poor management skills. Also, to suggest that someone else in the chain of command (a lower ranking employee in the department) should be charged with the responsibility to prepare a response to clarify what the actions really were, is a complete abdication of duty and responsibility. She should be fired or, at least, reprimanded.

I can see making the case that she (or any Secretary) should be involved in actions that effect the department, but that is NOT what my example was about.  My example was about rescinding documents that are no longer relevant because they are outdated or were incorporated into other documents, therefore the rescinding is not effecting the operations of the department.

From my experience, state government would be paralyzed if we would have to get approval from the Secretary to get to obsolete/rescind items that were already covered in other areas and had no effect on operations or policy.

If you really believe a Secretary should be able to speak on any subject within their department without getting assistance from their staff in drafting a response, I suggest you write to your legislators (both state and federal) and either ask for them to reduce the responsibilities of government because the Secretaries don't know everything going on in their department or ask that additional government agencies be created so Secretaries can know everything that goes on in their area.

For example, when a new Secretary takes over in a PA state agency (such as DHS), each department has to complete a "Policy paper" on any topic they believe may be a politically sensitive issue so the new Secretary is aware.  I know in just the one part of DHS I was involved with had over 100 "policy papers" the last time there was a change.  And the Office I worked for was only one of about 7 or 8 that had to do the same.  Based on the structure of government as currently constituted, there is no way a Secretary of a large agency could know everything without getting the Subject Matter Expect (SME) to offer their input.

Rongone wrote:

Then, based on your experience in state government operations, department operations are so large and complex that there is no way a department head or secretary could possibly be knowledgeable about everything going on within the department for which they are responsible. Did I get that right?

At least in the large departments, that would be accurate.  They are aware of obviously what the Governor's initiatives are for their Department and also what the "hot-button" political areas brought to their attention by activists and lobbyists.

I would not say that "nothing pertinent to the needs of the citizens gets done", because I have seen plenty of things improve within the state where the Secretary had little to zero impact on the changes/improvements that were implemented.  I think it would be fair to say that the lack of knowledge of everything going in within an agency does lead to some issues that would be easily avoidable and causes unnecessary problems.

You may want to contact your Rep Saylor and Rep Wagner and let them know you would not be in favor of Governor Wolf's proposal to combine Human Services, Health, Insurance and the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs into 1 agency.  If you have problem with the way it is now, combining 4 agencies into 1 will not make things better

Last edited by Brady Bunch (10/23/2017 5:18 pm)