Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of
Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Two: November 24, 2009
Location: U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado
PERSONS PRESENT:
Panel Members:
Steve Abbot
Jim Carafano
Dennis Celletti
Jerry Grizzle
Ron Harrison
Tim Lowenberg
Jim Metzger
George Nethercutt
Dennis Reimer
Erv Rokke
OSD Staff:
Cathy Polmateer, Designated Federal Officer (OASD-HD&ASA)
Manny Aponte, Alternate DFO (OASD-HD&ASA)
Doug Frasier, Alternate DFO (OASD-HD&ASA)
Mike Shane (OASD-HD&ASA)
RAND Staff:
Mike Wermuth
Gary Cecchine
Scott McMahon
David Oaks
Phil Kehres
Other:
Lt. Gen. Michael C. Gould, Superintendent, USAFA
COL Mark Johnson, Defense Coordinating Officer, Region VIII
Jim Reeves (U.S. Northern Command)
The meeting commenced with an introduction from Chairman Steve Abbot, who
introduced Lt Gen Michael C. Gould, the Superintendent ofthe U.S. Air Force
Academy. Gould welcomed everyone and discussed the evolving challenges faced by the
U.S. Air Force in a post-Cold War, post-9I11 world. The Chairman thanked Gould and
then called for a back brief from Sub-panel 2 (000 Plans and Programs for Training and
Equipping) about their meeting at Camp Gruber, OK, in October, 2009.
Dennis Celletti, Sub-panel 2 chairman, briefed the full panel on the results of the
meeting at Camp Gruber. Celletti outlined the emerging issues discussed by the Subpanel at the meeting, including:
• Suitability and trainability of first response forces
• The importance of having places where units can train at the same places as local
authorities
• The importance of interagency cooperation
• The need for the military to train people that will interface with their civilian
counterparts, such as incident commanders
Celletti noted that observing capabilities and operations of the CERFP training at Camp
Gruber first hand was useful.
The subpanel 2 minutes were approved unanimously by the full panel.
The Chairman called for Sub-panel back briefs from the second meet,irw,;s first day
session at NORTHCOM (NC). George ethercutt presented the brief for Subpanel I,
(Authorities). The purpose of the subpanel meeting at NC was to make judgments about
what additional authorities or revisions were needed. They concluded there was no
exception to the Posse Comitatus Act in the Stafford Act or Title 10 regarding indirect
support fo r immediate response authority, so nothing needed to be refined in that regard.
Nethercutt noted that the subpanel didn't have enough time for presenters to convey all
their concerns, and he felt that there were more issues for the subpanel to examine.
Examples include:
• Training and readiness oversight
• Improved information sharing
• Federal synchronization for CBRNE response
•
Improving information sharing
• Establishing standards for section 502 funds under title 32 that would clarity
states' expectations
• Domestic force posture
• Resourcing of reserve components related to CBRNE response
Tim Lowenberg added that the NORTCHCOM legal professionals said that authorities
are fully adequate in the air and maritime domains. They were equally consistent in
saying they saw no need for statutory modification of the Posse Comitatus Act
The Cha irman called for discussion on Subpanel I's backbrief, which was initiated by
Jerry Grizzle, who encouraged Subpanel 1 to talk to the legal staff at Joint Task Force Civil Support, which has spent a large amount of time on the Title 10rTitie 32
relationship. After discussion, the Cha irman noted that there is substantial existing and
appropriate authority for the president to declare emergencies for the country, but the
panel needs to be satisfied that that authority is clear and exists
Celletti next led the backbrief for Sub-panel 2, noting that there was a short period of
time to discuss many issues. These issues included :
• Approval to release NC plans to civilian agencies that need to see them; more
integrated planning and gap analyses are needed
• Individual and unit training for CBRNE-related units and individuals is improving
but needs more attention, including the CCMRF certification process.
• Allocation of forces for CCMRF
• Program budgeting and execution process for training and equipment for CBRNE
response units
Erv Rokke added that there is good progress with Civil Support Teams (CST) and Joint
Task Forces (JTF), but there is still some difficulty in exercising and training for other
organizations, such as CERFPs and CCMRFs. He said there is a need for resources to
improve the exercising and training for those other organizations, and that might be a
subj ect of needed future research ..
Carafano voiced concerns that the current response system is not coherent, comparing it
to a "Rube Goldberg device," to which the Chairman responded by calling it the "blank
slate question." That is, would the Panel come up with a different structure for CBRNE
response if offered a blank slate from which to create a national response system?
Dennis Reimer then presented the back brief for subpanel 3 (Operational Plans,
Structures, and Resources for DSCA related to CBRNE). He noted that the issues coming
from all the backbriefs were similar. He said that, despite the appearance of a " Rube
Goldberg device," the system is probably as good as possible given the requirements. His
subpanel talked with NC about the existing military plans and the National Security
Strategy. He highlighted that funding may be a potential issue . . Other issues from the
subpanel included:
• Command and Control (C2) structures
• Training
• The process for validating unit readiness for civil support
• The need for common language and doctrine and common operating capability
across DoD and its civil response partners
Ron Harrison presented the final backbrief for subpanel 4 (Coordination,
Communications, and Information Availability - Federal, State, and Local). He noted that
he was very impressed with NC ' s progress and offered several impressions based on his
subpanel ' s meetings:
• Homeland security vs. homeland defense seems to converge in terms ofCBRNE
and mass casual ty events
• Interagency work seems to be progressing well , with 40 interagency groups at
NC, for example.
•
•
More attention should be paid to private sector activities.
Equipment interoperability is improving but requires more attention.
Harrison stressed the importance of the Panel focusing on CBRNE events [as opposed to
natural disasters] ; Celletti concurred, noting that it is too easy to get off track if there is a
focus on other types of events. The Chairman expressed concern that interagency
preparation might be redundant and could lead to duplicated efforts in the case of a major
event.
The Chairman introduced COL Mark J ohnso n, Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO)
for FEMA Region VIII. Johnson spoke extensively about the structure, size and scope of
the Defense Coordinating Element (DCE) and the role of DCOs. His presentation
included:
• DCO is a full-time post, unlike in the past when DSCA was an additional
responsibility
• DCOs coordinate with Homeland Security Advisors, adjutants general , assistants,
and directors of emergency management in each state
• The majority of a DCO's job is developing and fostering relationships so that
when an event arises, it is easy to work with other officials
• A DCO tries to be familiar with state requirements so he can anticipate needed
capabilities
Johnson then discussed the resources available to a DCO and the relationship with
DSCA elements such as CSTs and CERFPs. He stressed the DCO's expertise in planning
for disaster events. The floor was opened for questions. Among the topics discussed
were:
• Legal training and consultation provided to DCOs; Johnson stressed that DCOs
operated well under the existing authorities with the exception of being
challenged by the deployment of reservist forces
• Target capabilities lists help determine state requirements
• Communication between DCE and states may be appropriate, but any response is
only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link may be the state, because
they don't have resources and capabilities
• The DCE/DCO has many communication tools available, but the challenge is
using the proper tool in the proper situation (e.g. , the classification problems of
SIPR and NIPR-based data)
• At the conclusion of the Q&A session with J ohn so n, the Chairman moved the
discussion to plans for future meetings and potential future witnesses. Mike
Wermuth presented slides with suggestions for both.
Carafano stated concerns about the ability of the DCO to provide visibility into state and
local plans and requirements, saying that the DCE may not be able to scale up for major
contingency operations or serve as an effective bridge to a task force commander during
contingency deployments.
The Chairm an moved the discussion to plans for future meetings and potential future
witnesses. Mike Wermuth presented slides with suggestions for both. Wermuth noted
that the final full panel meeting would likely take place in mid-July and serve the purpose
of reviewing and discussing recommendation. The Chai rman noted that, in the time
between meetings, panel members should continue discussion with their usual contacts
but must conform to statute if there is a desire for a group to meet.
After discussion of scheduling matters, Scott McMa hon from RAND presented a brief
on the recommendations of other panels with similar mandates, including the
Commission on National Guard Reserve and the Gilmore Commission.
The Chairm an opened the floor to public comment. There were none. On a motion by
Lowenberg, seconded by Harrison, the panel unanimously voted to adjourn until
January 19.
CERTIFIED AS CORRECT:
Steve Abbot, Chairman
Date