Missouri Officials Question USGS Decision on Denver Location for NGTOC
By Adena Schutzberg
, Directions Magazine
September 25, 2005
Classified Ads:
After last week's announcement that the USGS National Geospatial Technical Operations Center would be located in Denver, shutting out Rolla and other sites, Missouri Representative Jo Ann Emerson was described as being "a little bit furious," by her spokesperson.She, along with the state senators and local officials, had lobbied for the Rolla location and even tried to expand operations in the area.
Emerson and Sens.Christopher Bond and Jim Talent did not sit still.In a letter dated September 21 to Patrick Leahy, acting director of USGS, the three called for access to documents and reports regarding the decision and noted that "the lack of information provided by your agency on this matter is unacceptable and causes us to call into question the site selection process conducted by USGS."
It's not clear how far this exploration will go, but Max Ethridge, acting director over USGS's four mapping offices was quoted in the local paper saying, "Who knows? There's always hope."
Update 9/23 3:30 pm EST: The Rolla Daily News is not going to take the decision lying down, either.It demands answers in an unattributed article.
Morgan Bearden, a longtime Rolla USGS employee, accorinding to the paper said "he's not sure what can be done about the decision unless federal officials begin some sort of investigation about how the Denver site was selected over Rolla."
|
Your Comments Post a comment All comments provided in this section are those of the individual who has created the post. These are not the opinions of Directions Media, its editors, staff or owners unless otherwise noted. Directions Media retains the right to edit or delete any comments posted herein.
|
|
||||||
| The people in Rolla are not the only ones the USGS is leaving out in the cold. A number of people, including myself, recently relocated at there own expense and at the recommendations of USGS management in support of The National Map initiative. About a year after making the move these very people were told they too would be out of a job in a few months. I personally will not only be out of a job but stand to be out around $30,000 between real estate fees and moving expenses because I trusted the USGS to do the right thing. Due to technical advancements in the map making business and a less than adequate budget for many years, the USGS will no longer be able to make maps as we have done for approximately 130 years. Our best know product, the USGS 1:24000 scale map, is history. The hope is to replace these paper products with a digital map known as “The National Map”. This new digital map is to be produced from state, and local sources. Near the end of fiscal year ’03 Barb Ryan, who was the head of The National Map program at the time, made it very clear that she strongly recommended staff consider relocating to state offices to help the USGS build partnerships with state and local governments in support of this new digital National Map initiative. One of many problem with this vision was the USGS didn’t have the money to pay for transfers to these “Mapping Partnership Offices” (MPOs). Due to the lack of funding Barb Ryan ask for volunteers to make the move to MPOs. Barb made it very clear that The National Map was the future of the USGS and that successful candidates moving to MPOs would have a much more secure future with the USGS due to plans for downsizing. Barb stated that there would be an early out/buy out offered at the end of ’03 for which “only those individuals performing functions planned for restructuring are eligible”. MPO staff were not eligible, which implies there functions were not planned for restructuring and thus secure. Shortly after relocating in support of these efforts, and at managements strong recommendations, the USGS went through yet another reorganization and the creation of the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC). Shortly after the creation of the NGTOC it was announced that there would be a major downsizing and many would be losing there jobs. It would seem safe to assume that those relocating to MPOs in support of this new “The National Map” program would be spared from downsizing. It would seem safe to assume that those selected for relocation, following recent management recommendations and who made the move on their own dime, in support of programs touted as “the future of the USGS” would be safe from downsizing – WRONG! After leaving the home I had known and loved for over 20 years, after leaving all my friends in the Denver area, after spending thousand of dollars of my own money I am no better, if not worse, off than if I had done nothing. The USGS chose to put the NGTOC in Denver. This means that the people located in that office have a shot at keeping there jobs. All other NGTOC employees have been told they will most likely lose their jobs shortly. Even people like my self, based out of the Denver office but working at a MPO, will be out of a job. If I had ignored management’s recommendation and stayed in the Denver office I would most likely be $30,000 better off due to moving expenses and real estate fees. It cost me about $10,000 for the first move and I will most likely have to move again to find work, which could cost another $20,000. If I had stayed in Denver I would have had a shot at keeping my job but since I moved to Montana, at managements recommendations, I am outside of the Denver local commuting area and thus ineligible for any positions resulting from competitive sourcing based downsizing. It seems to me that the USGS has an ethical, if not legal, obligation to those following their recommendations. The USGS told us MPOs were the future of the USGS. We were told that our jobs would be less secure if we didn’t transfer to MPOs. We spent thousands of dollars or our own money based on USGS recommendations. Now due to the reorganization and creation of the NGTOC which came after our moves to MPOs, there has been a change in USGS management and an accompanying change in policy. Now USGS management is telling us that our jobs will most likely be eliminated. We did as they ask and now they are shafting us. What ever happened to ethics in government? Can the USGS be trusted to stand behind there policy decisions? Can the USGS be trusted to do as they say? Based on my experience, apparently not. |
||||||
|
||||||
| The USGS has a history of giving false information to its employees. The current controvery related to moves, job secuirty, etc. is just another example of the agency's history of misinformation, disinformation, and no information, in order to suit their own needs and political agendas. In the mid-1980's a fairly large number of USGS/National Mapping Division (NMD) employees in the the Menlo Park, CA, (and Reston, VA) office were urged to relocate to the two interior mapping centers (Denver, Co, and Rolla, MO) "...if you want to be assured of employment in the next five years." Those of us who did make the move (after much thought) did so because we could not afford to buy homes in the Bay Area, and the move to less expensive regions of the country seemed like a good idea. Many of us were native-born Californians leaving families and friends. Despite that, the so-called American dream (to buy a house)made the idea worth considering. The USGS management assured those of us pulling up stakes to move east that our vacated positions WOULD NOT be backfilled. The push to relocate to the interior of the country, they told us, was part of a "downsizing" of the two coastal mapping centers (in CA and VA)and the moves to the interior were part of a plan that would eliminate the need to conduct "reductions in force (RIFs)". Scores of us relied on management's truthfulness and made the move. But, of course, management's assurances were bold-faced lies. New people were hired in the positions we left, and many who did not move were promoted to higher grades (salaries). More than 20 years after the fact, many of us who believed their lies remain very bitter and inherently distrustful of federal management of any kind. If I am asked by someone interested in working as a civil servant for the Federal Government, I tell them two things: never believe anything management tells you (get it in writing!); and, if you do get hired and hope to be promoted - and your personal integrity and self-respect are of secondary and tertiary concern - be prepared to brown-nose your way up the corporate ladder. There is more than one way to prostitute yourself other than by the usual method. Suffice it to say "The more a thing changes, the more it remains the same." I have less than a year left until I am eligible to retire, and that day will not come soon enough! I curse the day I ever accepted a job with the US government! |
||||||
