Posted on 07/15/2019 5:11:03 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A Trump administration decision to move researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Kansas City area is threatening to spark the flight of more than half of the staff selected to move, gutting the agency of its top scientific voices.
Staff have until midnight Monday to decide whether to uproot and join the department as it moves its research branches from Washington, D.C., lured by $26 million in promised incentives from state and local officials.
Critics see the move, set to be completed by Sept. 30, as yet another example of the Trump administration looking to sideline scientists and researchers, keeping them away from the corridors of power. Administration officials deny that, calling it a cost-saving move intended to have researchers closer to farmers.
The decision comes as other agencies are also planning to relocate parts of their teams amid suspicions about the move. For example, the Interior Department is expected to announce Tuesday a new headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management.
“Moving these researchers out of Washington puts them out of earshot from policymakers. A lot of the research that scientists and economists do at [USDA] has policy implications and members of Congress need this information and need to have face-to-face meetings with these researchers,” Rebecca Boehm, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Hill.
“It keeps science out of the policymaking process. And we’ve seen many times that this administration doesn’t like facts or research that isn’t convenient or [is] an impediment to their agenda, so I think moving them away helps accomplish that,” she added.
The move affects two wings of the USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS) employees analyze the agricultural market, but their research is much broader, including looking at food stamps, rural poverty and conservation.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) employees work with universities to fund research and coordinate the process that issues research grants on agriculture-related subjects, including climate change adaptation.
The two agencies voted to unionize in response to the move, as Democrats in both chambers and a number of groups that regularly work with the two agencies lobby to keep them in Washington.
Estimates tallied by employees show 70 percent of ERS employees designated for the Kansas City office will not be moving. For NIFA, 45 percent of those surveyed say they will not move. Overall, the move was expected to impact 547 staff between the two agencies.
But the numbers of staff refusing to move may grow: Some employees said staff at both agencies are trying not to tip their hand, saying they will move only if they do not find another job in the D.C. area.
So far, just 27 ERS staff out of 250 have committed to moving to Kansas City, according to the employee tallies.
The UDSA argues the move will save $300 million over 15 years, but critics have said their cost-benefit analysis was shoddy and did not follow guidelines.
A different cost-benefit analysis from the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found the move would cost taxpayers between $83 million and $182 million.
Democrats have blocked USDA funding from supporting the move and asked the agency to turn over information about its decisionmaking process, and they have sponsored legislation to keep the two agencies in Washington.
“I am appalled with the Trump administration’s decision to force hundreds of Washington-based USDA research staffers to uproot their lives to Kansas City in order to keep their livelihoods,” Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), who sponsored the legislation, said in a statement when the move was announced.
“Many of these staffers believe their relocation is an effort to silence their research into topics that do not align with the Trump administration’s political agenda, including the study of climate change and benefits of low-income food assistance,” she added.
Employees had a list of complaints about a move they have likened to Amazon’s search for a second headquarters, as the USDA examined bids from 139 cities.
That process was put on pause during the government shutdown, but on June 16 employees were told they had a month to decide whether they’d like to move to the Kansas City area or leave the agency.
Employees would then have two months to move to Kansas City — they must be there by the end of the fiscal year — but school in the area is slated to start Aug. 12, putting added pressure on those with families to quickly make a move.
Employees say they are getting conflicting information about how much of their moving costs will be covered by the government. Other key details about the move are also unknown so far, according to the employees.
The USDA said it was working to make the move as smooth as possible but did not respond to several specific questions about the move from The Hill.
“USDA has determinedly worked to ensure employees have the resources they need to make informed decisions about their employment and to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible,” the agency said in a statement.
Employees say morale is at an all-time low and they worry about the future of an agency that is already hemorrhaging staff and having trouble completing its work.
“Honestly, I’m not sure how we’re going to bounce back, or if we will,” said Laura Dodson, an agricultural economist with ERS who is now a union steward. “This agency is the product of like 50 years of institutional knowledge and gathering up researchers who are very specialized in their fields.”
Employees also say there are contradictions between what USDA says it hopes to achieve with the move and how it would actually impact the department.
“It was sort of get fired or go,” said Ariela Zycherman, a national program leader with NIFA who is still weighing a move to Kansas City.
“People keep saying, ‘Those East Coasters don’t want to come to Kansas or Missouri.’ The fact of matter is that’s not really the issue,” she said. “Many of us would move to Kansas City, but there are questions about future of agency and its effectiveness and questions about the way this was hastily rolled out and whether it will have long-term effects on our families’ well-being.”
USDA has argued the move will allow employees to be closer to farmers — something employees say shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what they do.
“I think the biggest misconception around this is, we don’t serve individual farmers,” Dodson said. “Our stakeholders are primarily Congress and program leads and agencies and nonprofits in D.C. or people that come to meet with multiple entities in D.C.
“I think our presence will be very much diminished. I think we’ll be quite literally out of sight and out of mind.”
The bipartisan Kansas and Missouri delegation pushed hard to bring the offices to Kansas City, calling it a hub for research and a talented workforce and touting the lower cost compared with Washington, D.C.
But employees say the hectic way the move has been handled has soured many about the USDA.
“I’ve never experienced morale like this in any job,” said Wesley Dean, a national program leader in sociology for NIFA. “My colleagues are deeply committed to the mission of the agency, and see their positions as an opportunity to both shape the future of their scientific disciplines, and to serve the American people.
“These highly motivated civil servants feel as if their expertise and dedication to the agency and the public has been undermined and dismissed by the department.”
I suspect a private sector worker poll would come back 100M to Zero for a Boo f’n hoo.
Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
I worked for the DOD for over 30 years.
In a case like this, cost of the move was paid because it was for the benefit of the government.
It would be quite unusual if most of the moves are not being paid for.
Of course, there are exceptions for people who are in temporary positions, and a few others.
No ERS or NIFA employee will be involuntarily separated, though most will have to move to keep their jobs. Employees can choose not to relocate, but unless their positions are slated to remain in D.C., they will lose employment with USDA. The department said it will offer relocation assistance to employees who relocate. Employees will receive the same base pay but a new locality pay rate for Kansas City.
From this story and others. The move was announced in June. This story says they have to be there by the end of September and that "Employees say they are getting conflicting information about how much of their moving costs will be covered by the government."
In a case like this, cost of the move was paid because it was for the benefit of the government.
Not if the intent of the move is to get people to quit.
It would be quite unusual if most of the moves are not being paid for.
Wouldn't it also be unusual at this late stage for the Department of Agriculture not to say how much of the cost of the move, if any, they will cover?
There is not a lot of leeway on the part of the government agency.
Note that no one is being forced to move.
Doesn't make any sense until you know how much land Lady Bird Johnson owned in the area.
Doesn’t make any sense until you know how much land Lady Bird Johnson owned in the area.
I know she came from money but I never knew what her family owned.......this may warrant looking it up.......;)
Best president evar!
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex . . Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
. . . the free university . . . has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity . . . The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money . . . is gravely to be regarded.
Yet . . . we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address
I grew up in Seabrook, Tx, which is bike-riding distance from JSC. Real estate was the main reason I was given for its location.
Employees say?
Instead of relying on anonymous unnamed sources, why not contact an actual government source in OPM who has knowledge of the process of moving employees? Then compare that with whatever materials the employees have been given stating what the process will be, and what relocation assistance is to be provided. If there's a conflict there, then that's the story.
That's what journalists should do (but rarely do anymore, it would seem).
The fact that employees are griping means nothing. It's normal, and it certainly isn't news. Rumors run wild in situations like this, and they're rarely accurate. They should never be reported as fact.
I grew up in Seabrook, Tx, which is bike-riding distance from JSC. Real estate was the main reason I was given for its location.
I think it was a good decision. Even though it’s grown by leaps and bounds over the years, it’s still a good location. Haven’t been to Seabrook in years......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.