Subject: WINDS OF CHANGE: On the Ranger Districts...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
During his career Jack Lavin was Supervisor of several National
Forests. He has a dream that could help to bring about much needed
land stewardship. This 2-page note chronicles that dream--a dream
that champions a new organizational role for District Rangers--and
contrasts the dream to the stark reality of performance expectations
for District Rangers from the Office of Personnel Management.
Enjoy, Dve...
-------========X========-------
Eco-watch
9/19/91
District Rangers in an Era of Land Stewardship
Dave Iverson
During his many years as Forest Supervisor of a number of National
Forests, retired Boise National Forest Supervisor Jack Lavin nurtured a dream!
Jack's dream is that the District Ranger position is THE key job in National
Forest Management and should be a career destination position--not a "pass
through job." To accomplish this, Jack feels that the Ranger position should be
graded at the GS-13,14 level thereby attracting top level people and paying them
accordingly.
Jack believes that most problems in the Forest Service originate on some
ranger district. Through his many years as Forest Supervisor he observed some
Rangers who were always on top of issues, while on other districts similar
problems blossomed to regional or national issues. He also saw many competent
District Rangers leave that mid-level position to move onward and upward in the
Forest Service. For professional or personal reasons many competent folks are
attracted away from the Ranger job by higher paying jobs elsewhere in the
organization. Jack believes that District Rangers--as the line officer closest
to the land, resources and to the people who use them--must be integrally
involved in developing programs and policy.
Early this year Jack's dream was partly fulfilled, or so it seemed. On
April 1st the Washington-based Office of Personnel Management released new
classification standards for District Rangers, including a much better chance
for Rangers to be working at the GS-13 level (the GS 14 is still not available).
Unfortunately, all similarity to Jack Lavin's dream ended there. The standards
(found in a US Forest Service publication, March 1991: "Classification of
District Ranger Positions"), make it clear that Rangers are considered to be
implementers of policy, not those who make it.
In developing the classification standards, the Office of Personnel
Management spent a day with Regional Foresters discussing forest management
authorities and responsibilities. Regional Foresters were emphatic that it was
they who were responsible for Forest Plans, with the Forest Supervisors and
their Staff responsible for recommending coordinated strategies for the land and
resources of the forest. The Ranger's role was clearly delineated to be one of
making sure that the vision developed by higher-level players would be carried
out. Nowhere in the document is there any hint of awareness by Regional
Foresters that the Rangers ought to have a big say in deciding what happens on
their district. It is as if, in an age of organizational empowerment, that
Rangers are somehow magically empowered to do as they are told--and that they
will do as told even though no attempts are made to develop ownership and
commitment through participative decision making.
In short, the whole of the classification standards is a throw-back to
the old days of militaristic "command and control," where rank has its privilege
and those in the lower echelons bide their time and work their way up through
channels to finally get to a place where they can make land decisions. One
problem, of course, is that in order to work one's way up, one has to follow
orders from above that often work counter to land stewardship. Ultimately it is
the land and resources that suffer in a system where folks who ought to be
looking toward the land are looking toward their next promotion instead. To be
fair the standards do allow for special exceptions for Rangers whose job more
closely resembles a that of a "wildlife refuge manger." But exceptions are just
that--exceptions--and the rule itself is not in keeping with the tone of
empowerment that pervades New Perspectives, Total Quality Management and other
popular management initiatives in the Forest Service.
Wouldn't it be nice to rewrite the classification standards to embrace
the principles of participative management, and recognize Rangers and their
staff as integral players in land management--with primary attention duly
focused on making right decisions (in concert with other Rangers, key forest
staff, and Forest Supervisors) for the land entrusted to their care. And once
the decisions are right, with proper attention focused toward desired future
conditions for the land, and standards imposed on activities prescribed to get
to that desired future, then too the Rangers should have both the authority and
responsibility to make it happen. And they should be empowered to say no, when
necessary, to certain special interests, individuals, and even Congressional
Delegates if honoring their demands would degrade the land. This is not to
suggest that Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, are out of the picture,
just that their roles would be different. Regional Foresters would have a
coordinating role, as would Forest Supervisors and their staff, but District
Rangers and their staff must be at the heart of the process if it is ever to be
implemented.
Only when Rangers are involved in all aspects of forest stewardship,
including deciding what should be done, will Jack Lavin's dream become reality.
It will happen only when the the right incentives are in place and when Rangers
and all District Personnel are empowered to participate in decision making, as
many do now without formal authority. And it will happen only when sustainable
ecosystem management, as now championed by New Perspectives, is deemed important
enough to do more than pay lip service to much needed and fundamental changes
in workings of the Forest Service.