US Forest Service Looking to Replace Spokespeople with PR Firms

The U.S. Forest Service announced that it is weighing replacement of 100 of its public information staff with private public relations firms, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The move is motivated by pressure from the Bush White House to put more federal jobs out to bid by private contractors in order to “increase the cost-effectiveness of Forest Service work.”
According to agency memos, 100 of the agency’s 700 public affairs officers, public affairs specialists, writers, editors, graphic artists, illustrators and audio visual specialists will be reviewed by June 30 to determine whether the positions would be subject to bid by private firms. The agency plans to make decisions this fall and contractors could be in place by January.
Hundreds of other positions throughout the agency may be subject to similar bidding in 2006. In 2004, citing cost overruns and potential side effects, Congress severely restricted the Bush Administration efforts to outsource Forest Service and National Park Service jobs. Those restrictions, however, lapsed this past October and now the Bush Administration is again pushing its “Competitive Sourcing” initiative.
From PRWatch.org:
The U.S. Forest Service "is weighing replacement of 100 of its public information staff with private public relations firms," according to documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The move is in response to "pressure from the Bush White House to put more federal jobs out to bid by private contractors in order to 'increase the cost-effectiveness of Forest Service work.'" By June 30, the agency will review 100 of its 700 public affairs, communications and graphics positions, to determine whether they should be outsourced. PEER's Jeff Ruch warned, "Civil servants are under a legal obligation to tell the public the truth while PR firms specialize in shading it." Last year, the Forest Service's PR contract with OneWorld Communications was criticized for, among other things, brochures deemed "very misleading" by environmental groups that promoted increased logging in the Sierra Nevada.