2. Homeland Security funds - Laserfiche WebLink

Police and fire departments are looking to the feds for communication equipment standards, says Randy Bruegman, a fire chief in Oregon, others~Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle--were allot- ted a share of $100 million. The cities were chosen based on population den- sity, critical infrastructure and vulnera- bility to attack. Meanwhile, most localities, hesitant to make major investments in homeland security without federal money to defray costs, have had to spend their own funds on increased security. In a survey released in March, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that cities nationwide were spending about $70 million a week on 26 GOVE R NI N G May 2003 additional homeland security measures due to the war with Iraq and the height- ened level of threat alert. This is money on top of any funds they were already spending or planning to spend on post- 9/11 homeland security. Mayors have been waiting for homeland security funds for more than 18 months, says Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, who chairs the Conference's Homeland Security Task Force. "Cities," he says, "urgently need direct, flexible financial assistance to meet their homeland security needs." This is not a view that falls with favor on federal ears. Rather, Howard Schmidt, a special adviser to the president, suggests that state and local governments shouldn't be playing the waiting game, that good managers move forward with what they've got, "in the true American spirit to help themselves." State and local governments may not be thrilled to hear that they are expected to do a lot with very little, yet they have to move forward. Technology and security officials have to make sure they are pro- tecting government networks from cyber attacks. They must also tend to all the technologies that play a part in emergency services, disaster recovery and response-- from GIS mapping to criminal justice databases to wireless communications sys- tems. And, of course, public officials and law enforcement personnel have to figure out how to "talk" to one another during the first critical moments of an incident. At the same time, governments are not starting from scratch. Many have pieces already in place for homeland security. They're the protocols and systems that come into play at times of natural disasters and for crime prevention. What has changed is the 9/11 mindset: the recogni- tion that those plans and systems need to be upgraded and reinforced to protect against the threat of widespread and dev- astating attacks that most people never would have contemplated before 9/11. STRONG SIGNALS Lack of money isn't the only complaint about federal input on homeland security. State and local agencies are clamoring for guidance, but the federal Homeland Secu- rity Department is in a period of organi- zation: It is still figuring out how to run its own operations as a new agency and absorb personnel from nearly two dozen federal agencies. Not surprisingly, it hasn't come up with much guidance or coordi- nation for state and local efforts. Communications interoperability is a case in point. The ability for various emer- gency agencies to talk to each other at a time of crisis has become the top "home- land security" priority for many local gov- ernments. Too many emergency workers use outdated and incompatible systems that hinder their ability to share critical information in the midst of a crisis. This is not news to Randy Bruegman, fire chief of Clackamas County District One in Oregon, and president of the Inter- national Association of Fire Chiefs. By way = of background to the problem, Bruegman o~ talks about a recent incident: Fire person- ~ nel in Clackamas responded to a shooting, ~ as did police and medical units. The radio ~ system of the police in charge of the situa- ~ Governing.corn