Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of
Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents
MEETING MINUTES
DAY ONE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
LOCATION: RAND WASHINGTON OFFICE, ARLINGTON, VA
PERSONS PRESENT: 1
Panel Members: 2
Steve Abbot
Jim Carafano
Dennis Celletti
Jim Greenwood
Jerry Grizzle
Ron Harrison
Frank Keating
Jim Metzger
George Nethercutt
Fred Rees
Dennis Reimer
Erv Rokke
OSD Staff:
Christine Wormuth, PDASD (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs)
Cathy Polmateer, Designated Federal Officer (OASD-HD&ASA)
Manny Aponte (OASD-HD&ASA)
Mike Shane (OASD-HD&ASA)
Frank Wilson, DoD Committee Management Officer for FACA
1
The following list includes all persons who were present in an official capacity,
regardless of whether or not they stayed for the entire day’s session.
2
Panel candidate Timothy Lowenberg was unable to attend the first meeting. He will be
sworn in as a Panel Member at a later date.
1
RAND Staff:
Michael Rich, Executive Vice President
Jim Dobbins, Director, RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center
Mike Wermuth
Gary Cecchine
Scott McMahon
Keith Martin
Phil Kehres
Caroline Reilly
Nate Shestak
Several members of the public were also in attendance
The meeting commenced with welcoming remarks and initial administrative
announcements from Mike Wermuth of RAND.
Gary Cecchine of RAND then briefed the panel members and other attendees on
emergency procedures
Wermuth proceeded with an overview of the panel and its mission before introducing
Christine Wormuth, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and
America’s Security Affairs. Wormuth then offered some comments to the panel:
• Thanked the panel on behalf of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs Paul
Stockton and noting that DoD is grateful for the panel’s time and efforts
• Mentioned and detailed work that DoD is doing concurrently on similar issues
• Thanked RAND for their role in the panel’s work
• Concluded by noting that her office will do its utmost to facilitate meetings of the
panel and thanked panel members again
After Wormuth’s comments, Wermuth asked panel members to go around the table and
briefly introduce themselves and to describe their background and expectations for the
panel.
Wermuth proceeded by introducing some of RAND staff who will be supporting the
panel’s efforts. He continued by briefing an overview of the RAND Corporation
describing the institution’s principles, goals and mission and stressing that RAND does not
engage in outcome-determined research. Wermuth then provided some additional
administrative and “housekeeping” notes before introducing Frank Wilson of
Washington Headquarters Service, DoD Committee Management Officer for FACA, to
swear in the panel members.
2
Wilson explained that each panel member would be sworn in as a special government
employee. The panel members then raised their right hands and repeated the oath in
unison with Wilson, who then congratulated the panel members on their swearing in.
Panel members also signed a form accepting the appointment.
Wermuth congratulated the panel members and explained the next agenda items. He
asked panel members if anyone had an objection if he facilitated the adoption of panel
by laws and procedures and the process for election of the chairman. There was no
objection. Wermuth then briefed the attendees on the by-laws and procedures that are to
govern the advisory panel proceedings. James Metzger moved to amend the by-laws to
say “the first meeting of the panel will take place on 15-16 September 2009.” On motion
made by Metzger and seconded, the panel adopted the by-laws and procedures as
amended with a unanimous “aye” vote.
Wermuth then asked the panel for nominations for Chairman. Jerry Grizzle nominated
Steve Abbot. Wermuth asked if there were other nominations. There being none, the
panel by acclamation elected Steve Abbot as Chairman. Abbot then assumed the seat of
the Chairman. Abbot thanked panel members and asked for nominations for Vice
Chairman. Fred Rees nominated Frank Keating. Dennis Reimer seconded the
nomination. Abbot asked if there were other nominations. There being none, the panel
by acclamation elected Frank Keating as Vice Chairman. Keating assumed the seat of
the Vice Chairman. The Chairman then announced a fifteen-minute recess.
RECESS—15 minutes
After returning from the recess, the Chairman welcomed Michael Rich, Executive Vice
President of RAND Corporation. Rich offered remarks to the panel, congratulating Abbot
and Keating on their elections as Chairman and Vice Chairman. He noted that the
panel’s charter is broad and that RAND will do everything it can to support the panel’s
mission.
The Chairman turned to Wermuth who briefed the panel on the official panel charter
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and what its requirements mean for the
panel. Wermuth noted that RAND envisioned six full panel meetings over the course of
the next year, occurring approximately every two months. The Chairman asked for
clarification on Cathy Polmateer’s position. Polmateer noted that she is the only person
performing the role of DFO but that the panel could recommend an alternate. The Vice
Chairman stressed that the panel should be sensitive to FACA’s requirements for
openness.
3
Next, Wermuth gave the panel an overview of the panel’s enabling legislation. A
discussion ensued about the specific mandates outlined in the legislation. Several
potential aspects of the panel’s mandate were discussed, and it was noted that:
• There is nothing in the enabling legislation that would limit the panel to work on
response to CBRNE or natural disasters; homeland defense and prevention is
implicit though may not be a priority
o Title of the panel says “after” certain incidents, but the controlling language
is “in the event of”
o Work could include deterrence, prevention and detection as well as
response and recovery
• Scenarios are encouraged in the panel’s work
• The panel may decide, if appropriate, to assess DoD support for the homeland
defense mission in addition to (and distinguished from) the DSCA mission
o The panel may also consider civil support for DoD authorities in the event of
a homeland defense scenario
• There is nothing explicit about terrorism or WMD in the legislation; the panel may
consider CBRNE events that are not related to outright attacks (i.e. large-scale
chemical spills or pandemic flu)
• There are several points of contact being identified within the government to
provide information to the panel
• The panel is encouraged to meet with and gather information from a wide array of
agencies, though time is an issue and priorities must be set
After the discussion, the Chairman announced a ten-minute recess.
RECESS—10 minutes
The Chairman reconvened the meeting by noting that the panel has a large mandate and
a lot of issues to work through in a relatively short period of time.
Wermuth then briefed the panel on key Department of Defense authorities. A discussion
ensued wherein several salient issues were highlighted:
• Current DoD directives dealing with DSCA are in the process of being updated
• The panel suspected that existing civilian capabilities might be inadequate or even
non-existent concerning biological or chemical events; it is within the panel’s
mandate to comment on the general state of affairs rather than tackling every issue
at the state and local level
• State and local issues must be examined in order for the panel to understand how
many questions the panel will be able to answer
o Certain states and localities specialize in unique disaster response areas; in
order to adequately respond to a CBRNE or natural disaster, state and local
4
•
response forces must be both highly competent and capable of working
together efficiently
The panel felt it may be worthwhile to re-examine some of the statutes that
authorize DoD to provide civil support
At the behest of the Chairman, the panel discussed a statement that had been submitted
by the ACLU. It was decided that a legal briefing from DoD would be useful to aid in the
panel’s understanding of current DoD authorities and their implementation.
Noting that it was not required by statute, regulation, or policy, the Chairman then
opened the floor for oral comments from members of the public in attendance. Heather
Hogsett Director of Public Safety and Homeland Security for the National Governor’s
Association noted that her office has been working with a DoD legislative proposal that
would authorize the Secretary of Defense to call up troops for disaster response; the
authority exists for CBRNE but not disaster response. She stated the concern of the NGA
with authorities of operation control of all military forces--federal and National Guard.
She also noted that her office would be happy to provide further information.
Panel members were offered the chance to make general comments to wrap up the
meeting. Several comments were offered and discussed:
• Panel members are permitted to request more information and/or briefings on any
relevant topic. RAND will send some information even if not requested. All material
will need to be available to the public due to FACA.
• There likely isn’t very much overlap between this panel and the WMD charter
(Commission for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and
Terrorism, or Graham-Talent Commission); the issue of overlap is serious and it
would be prudent for the panel to not waste time repeating work that has already
been done.
• It is important that the panel evaluate not only authorities but also capabilities
The Chairman concluded the substantive portion of the day by outlining issues that lay
ahead in Day Two, such as potential work on natural disasters, potential witnesses to
come before the panel, potential sub-panels and number of future meetings. On motion
made and seconded, the panel stands in recess until September 16.
RECESS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 16 AT 8:20 A.M. EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME
5
DAY TWO: SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
LOCATION: RAND WASHINGTON OFFICE, ARLINGTON, VA
PERSONS PRESENT: 3
Panel Members: 4
Steve Abbot
Jim Carafano
Dennis Celletti
Jerry Grizzle
Ron Harrison
Frank Keating
Jim Metzger
George Nethercutt
Fred Rees
Dennis Reimer
Erv Rokke
OSD Staff:
Cathy Polmateer, Designated Federal Officer (OASD-HD&ASA)
Manny Aponte (OASD-HD&ASA)
Mike Shane (OASD-HD&ASA)
Karen Dahlheim, Office of the General Counsel, OSD
RAND Staff:
Mike Wermuth
Gary Cecchine
Scott McMahon
Keith Martin
Mike Lostumbo
Phil Kehres
Caroline Reilly
Nate Shestak
3
The following list includes all persons who were present in an official capacity,
regardless of whether or not they stayed for the entire day’s session
4
Panel Member Jim Greenwood was unable to attend the Day 2 session.
6
Several members of the public were also in attendance
The Chairman reconvened the meeting for Day Two and welcomed everyone back.
Karen Dahlheim briefed the panel on ethics guidelines and conflicts of interest and
collected disqualification forms signed by the panel.
The Chairman then asked panel members if research on response to natural disasters –
beyond CBRNE – should be on the agenda. A discussion followed wherein several points
for and against were brought to light:
• Reasons for:
o Many capabilities required for natural disaster and CBRNE response are
the same
o Lessons learned from previous natural disasters may not have been
implemented well
o There have been many instances of DoD support for natural disaster
response historically
• Reasons against:
o There is much work to do in a short period of time and work on CBRNE
response should not be diluted
o Natural disaster response is not specifically part of the panel’s mandate
The panel concluded that it would focus on CBRNE issues, though it would not explicitly
exclude a secondary focus on natural disaster response if time and resources allow.
Furthermore, RAND will provide information based its extensive prior research on natural
disaster response so that the panel can be informed without devoting more time than is
necessary to the topic.
At the Chairman’s prompting discussion turned to unresolved issues from the previous
day’s session. The discussion produced several key points, including:
• The panel should thoroughly explore the command and control structure of disaster
response, taking special care to not recommend extra layers of bureaucracy
• Attention should be paid to existing local incident command structures
• Briefing and presentations from local first responders such as fire and police chiefs
could prove useful
In order to address the issues, the Chairman suggested that the panel should review the
already substantial analysis that’s been done on the salient issues, to avoid unnecessary
overlap.
Wermuth then presented a briefing on key definitions and terminology.
Cecchine briefed the panel on examples of relevant RAND research, outlining RAND’s
work on areas such as defense support for civil authorities (DSCA) and the Army’s
7
response to Hurricane Katrina. At the conclusion of the briefing, the Chairman called for
comments or questions and, there being none, announced a twenty-minute recess.
RECESS—20 minutes
The Chairman reconvened the panel by noting that the panel would like to see the
studies presented by Cecchine. He then transitioned to the issue of dividing the panel’s
mandate into specific topics. Potential topics included:
• DoD (and other) authorities and policies
• Coordination of capabilities
• State defense forces
• Other federal, state and local capabilities
• Status of recommendations from other panels
Discussion turned from potential topics to subpanels that will cover each topic. Wermuth
and Cecchine presented a construct for subpanels that essentially follows the mandate in
the enabling legislation. Wermuth noted that an additional advantage to the structure
would be that the panel report chapters could follow the same structure. The following
subpanels were discussed and approved by the panel without objection. The Chairman
offered his suggestion for leadership and membership of the subpanels:
•
Authorities (d)(1)
o Fred Rees, Chair
o George Nethercutt
•
DoD plans and programs for training and equipping (d)(2) and (d)(6), CSTs (d)(8)
o Dennis Celletti, Chair
o Erv Rokke
o Jim Metzger
•
Operational plans for DSCA related to CBRNE (d)(3)
o Dennis Reimer, Chair
o Jim Greenwood
o Jerry Grizzle
o Tim Lowenberg 5
5
Panel candidate Timothy Lowenberg was unable to attend the first meeting. He will be
sworn in as a Panel Member at a later date.
8
•
Coordination, communications and information availability - Federal, state and
local (d)(4) and (5)
o Ron Harrison, Chair
o Jim Carafano
o Frank Keating
Panel members agreed to their respective subpanel assignments. It was decided that
Wermuth would be the primary POC for subpanels 1 and 4 and Cecchine would be the
POC for subpanels 2 and 3. It was also noted that subpanels have the ability to travel
and meet with witnesses separately from the full panel.
The next discussion centered on potential future meeting dates. The panel tentatively
decided on future meetings on or near the following dates:
• November 23-24, 2009
• January 19-21, 2010
• March 16-18, 2010
• Mid-May 2010
• Mid-July 2010
It was reiterated that the final report of the panel is due on September 15, 2010.
The last substantive topic discussed was potential witnesses that could appear before the
panel. The following recommendations were made and discussed:
• Commander, U S Northern Command
• Chief, National Guard Bureau
• DoD General Counsel
• Secretaries (or their representative) of:
o DHS
o DHHS
o DOE
• Attorney General/Director of FBI (or representative)
• Members of Congress
• Governors (or their representative—emergency manager/homeland security
advisor)
• Key local officials (mayor, sheriff, police/fire chief)
• Associations
o NGA
o NACO
o National League of Cities
o Red Cross
o AMA
• NEMA leadership
• FEMA leadership
9
•
•
•
Commandant, U S Coast Guard
Chemical/biological disaster response experts
Commanders of diverse CSTs
Before concluding, the Chairman welcomed comments from the public. The only
comment came from a contractor working with the National Guard Bureau who offered
the panel his support.
On motion made and seconded, the panel stands in adjournment sine die, subject to the
call of the chair.
ADJOURN
CERTIFIED AS CORRECT:
____________________________
Steve Abbot, Chairman
________________
Date
10