Some agencies treat oversight of their programs as a burden or a threat to be avoided or evaded. But that is a shortsighted view.
The paradox of oversight is that when properly performed it actually serves the interests of the overseen program by building confidence in its legitimacy and integrity.
Perhaps with that in mind, U.S. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey recently issued a memo (pdf) to senior Army leaders stressing the importance of effective oversight, especially when it comes to classified “sensitive” activities.
“I expect my oversight team to have an informed understanding of the Army’s conduct of, or support to, sensitive activities,” Secretary Harvey wrote.
“Sensitive activities may include intelligence activities and military operations, organizational relationships or processes, and technological capabilities or vulnerabilities.”
See “Oversight of Sensitive Activities,” May 18, 2006.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.