NYT: Who Divides Antiterror Money? That's a Secret

Who Divides Antiterror Money? That's a Secret
By DIANE CARDWELL and AL BAKER
Published: June 3, 2006

The panel that guided the distribution of $711 million in antiterrorism money in a process that led to New York City's share being reduced by 40 percent is a shadow player in the war on terror, its work kept secret and its members shielded from view.

A collection of about 100 law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats from all over the country, the so-called peer reviewers who evaluated proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, took vows of silence, signing agreements that they would not reveal the substance of their deliberations....

***

Even some of the panelists were frustrated by the evaluation process, which involved a complex and rigid system for grading the highly detailed proposals, according to an official who had been briefed on the deliberations by a member of the panel.

Homeland Security officials say that in creating the panel this year, they were seeking to institute a new system of evaluating aid applications that would for the first time engage people from around the country, making the judging impartial.

Panelists got to work in March at the National Fire Academy in Emmetsburg, Md. The panel evaluates applications for domestic security aid, but the actual decisions on how much aid to award, based in part on the panel's findings, are made by Homeland Security officials....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/nyregion/03security.html?hp&ex=1149307200&en=f689cbdf64ecee60&ei=5094&partner=homepage

...does our government think that it can keep secrets from WE THE PEOPLE?

They serve us. We have a right to know what they're doing and how their arriving
at their decision.

I'm so sick of this dictatorship and its evil little minions.

safe from harrassment, pressure, and to prevent the system from being gamed.

It's the essence of 'peer review', having *independent* people, or at least people that are presumably independent, be able to make judgments when there are no possible repercussions. Typically the reviewers, once given anonymity, would treat it as a violation of a promise to have their identities revealed, and the next round of peer reviewers would know that whatever they may *really* think of an application's merits, they have to play politics instead--instead of evaluating as they best can, they think about how others will perceive their evaluation. So much for fair and impartial.

Now, that doesn't mean some won't come forward; but I think I'd be more upset if the * administration reneged on their deal.

In principle you wouldn't know who submitted the application or paperwork you were reviewing, but that's hardly likely here, at least in some cases. However, since the applicants didn't know who'd be evaluating them, they weren't able to push the reviewers' buttons. You know that Dr. Q is going to be evaluating them, and he's been publicly calling for better protection of gravel-processing facilities, well, then you make damned sure you discuss how vulnerable gravel-processing facilities are in your town.

If you can look at the results and say it still looks more political than sensible, then you've got a gamed system anyway.

I said in another thread on this it actually pleases me to see the way the money is spread out -- because if there was really any threat I don't think the distribution would look so absurd.

Shhhhhut up



;)

which the allocations are based, including subpoena of documents and testimony.

Shows you, you can be "bushbushbushbush" until you lose money, then it's "Wait a minute . . . "

TO DELIVER. i'm SICK of it. i'm sure you are too.

take action. NO MORE SECRETS!

Time to change that.

are the #2 per capita recipient of DHS funding, it would seem that Jack Abramoff is somehow involved in the secret meetings.

would lo-o-o-ove a linkie link on that one!

http://www.censeoresearch.com/hsfunds.htm

Ooops, American Samoa is #2, Northern Marianna Islands is #3.

#2 and #3 DHS per capita recipients are Jack's sweatshop pals.

Coincidence?

There is no hint of a whiff of the concept of shame in these people, is there?

that the grant applications got slammed for allocating the money to personel rather than plant/equipment.

Since the grants are specifically for infrastructure building (plant/equipment, some training), but prohibit ongoing costs, much of the grant request was ignored.

This is par for the course for many federal grants -- and (among other reasons) seems like the lower level people acted correctly and within the rules.

That being said, Chertoff apparently told Blumeburg that some ongoing costs would be subsidized -- but never told anyone else in the DHS.

IMHO, setting these priorities, and whether ongoing expenses are eligible for funding, should be a congressional decision.

and how many corporate representatives or lobbyists -- current or past -- do you think were included on this panel? . . .

...since this war put big bucks into the pocket of certain companies anyway...

btw, where do terrorists get their weapons? I'm sure there are no weapons manufacturers in the middle east or other poor nations.