Dm B8 Team 7 Fdr- 7-25-03 Team 7 Memo- Critical Issues That Impact The Commissions Recommendations 498

CRITICAL ISSUES THAT IMPACT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TEAM? July 25, 2003 Vice Chairman Hamilton stated that the recommendations developed by the Team should be those that the commission deems to be most important, implementable, and pragmatic, but not necessarily easy. Team 7 has identified three issues, which in our view, should have a significant impact on the type, number, and tone of the Commission's recommendations. The decision to focus on these areas will directly impact the work that Team 7 must conduct in order to develop the information the Commission will need. Leadership Accountability and the Human Factor A major theme of questions from the families and followers of the Commission's progress is whether we plan to hold "accountable" leaders and/or those in positions of authority who might have prevented the 9-11 terrorist attack. The questions of "who" should be held accountable,"why" and "how" will need to be reconciled by the Commissioners. Team 7's current approach on the accountability issue is to tell the 9-11 story via our narratives and let the administration, Congress and the public make their own decision on accountability and the influence of human factors. The presumption is that the Commission would not issue recommendations identifying who should be held to account and how one would be held accountable as it pertains to actions prior to 9-11. The team has discussed outlining a general set of professional position criteria against which all high level government officials, including those politically appointed, could be subjectively compared. The criteria would include specific experience, expertise, training and professional development for specific positions. Developing such criteria is of value because it would allow the Commission to make a statement on what it believes are reasonable expectations the public should (and should not) have of government officials without having to criticize the specific officials in key posts prior to 9-11. Is this the approach the Commission wants to take? Goal Setting, Prioritization. and Resource Allocation Given the widely dispersed threats and vulnerabilities across the various modes of transportation, the potential for the nation's transportation system to be attacked and the consequences (economic, psychological, etc.) resulting from such an attack remain significant. It will be important for the Commission to address the issue of how to manage the risks posed by terrorists across the different transportation modes and how to prioritize the allocation of both policies and resources to address those risks. Examples of questions relevant to this issue are:

• • •

How should the federal government conduct risk management for transportation security systems? What should be the highest resource and policy priorities for transportation security over the next five years? How, specifically, should the federal government more effectively prepare the country to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the transportation system?

Ways and Means A critical question relevant to the Commission's mandate is: How should we improve the processes, procedures and mechanisms by which we provide transportation security in the field?. The Commission might want to focus recommendations on high priority areas including: •

•

Technology: Recommendations on how best to plan, develop, finance, implement and maximize the use of advanced technology (detection/screening equipment and information technology) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation security processes. Layering: Recommendations to establish a truly "layered" security system that employs discrete but mutually supporting security vectors that, taken as a whole, provide security quality assurance in the same way that "redundancy" serves aviation safety objectives.