Worker who sent Hawaii nuclear alert message is fired, but he’s only the end point of a deeply flawed system
Officials revealed that the employee who sent the [nuclear] alert was fired Friday. His name has not been revealed. A second worker quit before disciplinary action was taken, and another was being suspended without pay, officials said.
“The protocols were not in place. It was a sense of urgency to put it in place as soon as possible. But those protocols were not developed to the point they should have,” retired Brig. Gen. Bruce Oliveira, who wrote the report on Hawaii’s internal investigation, said at a news conference.
The firing is not surprising, because this worker really messed up. But the situation as revealed by the article is much much worse than that. In fact, this same worker had been messing up for years, just not on quite so large a scale, and nothing was done:
Hawaii emergency management officials knew for years that an employee had problems performing his job. Then, he sent a false alert warning of an imminent missile attack earlier this month.
The worker had mistakenly believed drills for tsunami and fire warnings were actual events, and colleagues were not comfortable working with him, the state said Tuesday. His supervisors counseled him but kept him for a decade in a position that had to be renewed each year.
So this behavior was part of a known pattern of alarmist misunderstanding by this guy, and yet he was retained for a decade. Why? It’s pure speculation. It could be that it’s almost impossible for a civil servant in Hawaii to be fired. It could be that there was some extra reason this man was protected. But there’s no question that quality control was virtually nonexistent.
But it wasn’t just this guy’s fault, although he definitely should shoulder some of the blame. And it wasn’t just the fault of those who failed to fire him, although they definitely should shoulder some of the blame. The system also wasn’t set up to protect from human error. It was shockingly bad:
The agency had a vague checklist for missile alerts, allowing workers to interpret the steps they should follow differently. Managers didn’t require a second person to sign off on alerts before they were sent, and the agency lacked any preparation on how to correct a false warning.
Excuse me but, WTF? Is this some sort of caricature? Some of you may respond by saying “typical liberal bureaucracy.” But I don’t think this is typical—this goes way beyond anything I think of as typical. Are these people all perpetually stoned? What gives?
The difficulty, nay impossibility, of getting any bureaucrat fired seems generally acknowledged. This guy’s co-workers knew for a long time that he was unfit for his position. Nothing was done.
‘Some of you may respond by saying ‘typical liberal bureaucracy.”‘
Not me, I’d simplify to, “typical bureaucracy”. Incompetence is inborn in bureaucracy, it has no political affiliation. And the more bureaucracy you have (steps, processes, divisions of labor, and segregation of duties) the more you enable, cause even, incompetence.
They kept the poor guy in a job he had proven over 10 years he was incapable of doing correctly. He should have been let go as soon as they determined he was not competent to do his job. But I suspect the bureaucracy has very strict rules about such actions. Probably had to notify him, coach him, subject him to more frequent evaluations, notify him some more, petition to have him reassigned or fired, and on, and on. In the end only gross malfeasance could trigger the firing.
In Hawaii state jobs are a patronage plum and some people have more than one.
What Frederick said…
They’re not giving his name because it is likely the same as someone way high up the political food chain or someone who owes someone a favour and that moron’s job was the payback.
Forget it Jake…it’s a bureaucracy.
Just thank God no one died in the chaos.
“But I don’t think this is typical–this goes way beyond anything I think of as typical. Are these people all perpetually stoned? What gives?”
I know it’s anecdotal but my experience is otherwise. During a summer job at a NASA facility, we were sitting in a lab working away and this lunatic came in from the hall and raved while he tore down a speaker playing background elevator music. Now I take a back seat to no one in disliking elevator music but this was unhinged and the guy was GS-14 or 15 high in the management of the place.
My brother worked for the Department of the Army and told me stories about a co-worker who apparently developed schizophrenia and came into work wearing aluminum foil hats. He took a dislike to my brother and would rant at him. The guy continued on the job for a long period and apparently never took medication. Schizophrenia typically manifests as a break where people become psychotic some time in their 20’s. Before that they are weird but can function OK. After that the only way they can function at all is if they take medication, which many resist doing. It’s a sad situation but the guy should not have been on the job.
Speaking from experience as a civil servant in Hawaii — the Housing Authority — this is par for the course.
Much more typically, the trooper simply doesn’t show up for work — to speak of — at all. They merely have to drop by in the morning — and then it’s off to their circuit of friends.
Such a ghost employee has no reason to expect termination.
The same employee will prove to be hyper-active during the election season. ( ie the Primary — the actual election is a foregone conclusion — as Hawaii is a One-Party State. )
(Not sure how this posted twice… at least I can edit.)
I second Steve Walsh above. “Typical bureaucracy.” no political affiliation is required.
What do you get when an organization has no correcting mechanism? You can’t fire bad people. You can’t reward good people because there is a salary schedule negotiated by union contract. 10 years on the job you make X. The only thing you can do is not promote people.
And when it is the .gov, even the really bad organizations won’t disappear, because they have no competition.
It isn’t all just .gov insanity, though it can certainly be ingrained in .gov departments.
My son was newly installed as manager of SS disability evaluators. Almost immediately the work was barely getting done because of the personnel dynamics. One woman submitted a resignation to him on a Friday then on Monday tells him she is rescinding it! (Was she trying to get him to beg her to stay???) Then another guy, ( who actually does productive work) tells my son, he has a side job as security for President Trump. & he says this in all seriousness. LOL
He exhibits schizo symptoms my son says but is on medication . My son says it’s like managing a collection of kooks
All sizeable orgs must have a bureaucracy of sorts. The real question IMHO is whether that bureaucracy has been infected with labor union style employee protections.
That’s not to say that employee protections are bad per se. But clearly the union model is off the charts of sensibility. I’ve seen the short quote of FDR being adamant about not allowing unions into fed. gov. Then JFK did it anyway.
The big problem (or feature not a bug for Dems) is that unions can frequently buy the election of politicians that give them what they want. And it is not just money, but massive boots on the ground for get-out-the-vote etc.
______
I spent years as a civ. employee on a US military base. This type of nonsense is routine, sad to say.
As a former SEIU member (not by choice), I came think of SEIU and AFSCME as important threats of to government responsiveness in our democratic republic. And that is not because of any personal quarrels. It is because of how they protect bad individual performers as well as poor performing agencies.
My take is Hawaii is the part of the Left Coast that sheered its moorings, floated to sea, and turned progressively more nutty, being unfettered and insulated from Deplorables.
I’m a state government employee and I think there must be a factory somewhere churning out these guys. That or they found one of my coworkers and either cloned or MIRV’d him–not sure which would be worse….
no matter what you may find to say about the nuclear alert problem, nothing could be worse than Derrick K. Watson, the judge who thinks he was elected POTUS
As dumb (bad) as it was to send out an alert like it was the real thing, I shudder to think what if they did (or in the future – will do) the opposite?
That is, it IS the real thing and they send out an alert as if it is a drill? Or send no alert at all to the general public while protecting only themselves?
Sort of like Hillary sending an email to family telling the truth about the attack in Benghazi while claiming, to the general public, it was just about some stupid video.
charles Says:
February 3rd, 2018 at 8:36 am
As dumb (bad) as it was to send out an alert like it was the real thing, I shudder to think what if they did (or in the future — will do) the opposite?
* * *
A valid concern.
Dry run leading up to a false flag, which means damage control must be in effect.
My ex-wife used to work for a bank with branches in Hawaii. She hated having to deal with them at all, because every time they would be all like “hang loose, duuude, what’s your hurry” and never get her whatever she needed.
I would not be at all surprised to find that this attitude penetrates the state bureaucracies. Hang loose, duuude, we’ll write up those protocols and stuff, right after we surf some tasty waves. Mahalo!