Monday, January 12. 2009

More on COGO's Letter to Congress on Geospatial Oversight Committee Request

I sent a request to Nick Palatiello of the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) to get some clarification on the reasons for the letter to Congress from the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO) of which MAPPS is a member. The answers to my questions are attributed to John Palatiello of MAPPS:

Joe Francica (JF): Was there a primary force behind the letter issued by COGO?  Was one organization stepping forward with interest to address this issue with Congress?
John Palatiello (JP): "COGO operates under rules that require unanimous agreement to take a position.  While the agenda it was presented by MAPPS, the reaction/reception from all the COGO organizations was very positive and the coalition easily recognized the benefit of the proposal and adopted it promptly with no dissenting comments."

JF: It looks like there is some other underlying issues besides wanting another subcommittee established. Was it perceived that federal technology funds were not being dispersed effectively for geospatial technology? Why ask to establish yet another subcommittee or was the rationale that a single subcommittee was needed?
JP: "Technology funds are a very small part of what the Federal government spends on geospatial.  Most funds are for programs, data and activities to support programs – highways, flood control, agriculture monitoring, water resources, highways, homeland security, etc.  Those programs are spread among scores of federal agencies and scores of Congressional committees.  Whether one believes FGDC is effective or not, at least there is an FGDC in and for the Executive Branch agencies.  There is no FGDC for Congress.  Jurisdiction over geospatial is spread over scores of Congressional (House and Senate) committees and subcommittees.  No one is in charge, no one is primarily responsible, and no one coordinates.  The 'lead' committee is what COGO is seeking."

JF. Was it perceived that the FGDC was not an effective organization to manage cross-agency coordination?
JP: "The COGO recommendation is to Congress on the structure and organization of Congress.  FGDC is of and for the Executive Branch and has no jurisdiction over the Legislative Branch.  The COGO recommendation was to the Legislative Branch and has no bearing on FGDC nor is the recommendation for Congressional geospatial committees a judgment on FGDC's effectiveness."

Posted by Joe Francica at 06:01 | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0) |

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

To me, this appears to be a very minimal "more".

The lack of a unified "voice" for geospatial in both Congress and the Executive Branch is a pressing need. See my comment to the original posting.

#1 Duane Marble on 2009-01-12 14:22 (Reply)

Duane, although that all might be true, it seems to me that what they want is a single lobbying point for the industry and it's organizations. Do you really believe that geospatial falls into the same category and level of importance such as the Intelligence Committe? Should it? How would that work? I say let the existing groups do their job, and if you don't achieve the level of funding you desire on one program, that leaves all the other groups to lobby.

#2 Russell Pence on 2009-01-12 17:26 (Reply)

Russell, I would not argue with you with respect to MAPPS. However the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO) also represents a number of professional organizations who have goals that are more in line with mine.

As far as the importance of intelligence vs geospatial,
my impression - from the outside - is that there is a lot of intelligence work that uses geospatial tools and concepts.

#2.1 Duane Marble on 2009-01-12 18:16 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to	[ Top level ]#1: Duane Marble on 2009-01-12 14:22 #2: Russell Pence on 2009-01-12 17:26   #2.1: Duane Marble on 2009-01-12 18:16
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information?   Subscribe to this entry