CRITICAL ISSUES THAT IMPACT THE COMMISSION'S

RECOMMENDATIONS

TEAM?
July 25, 2003

Vice Chairman Hamilton stated that the recommendations developed by the Team should
be those that the commission deems to be most important, implementable, and pragmatic,
but not necessarily easy. Team 7 has identified three issues, which in our view, should
have a significant impact on the type, number, and tone of the Commission's
recommendations. The decision to focus on these areas will directly impact the work that
Team 7 must conduct in order to develop the information the Commission will need.

Leadership Accountability and the Human Factor

A major theme of questions from the families and followers of the Commission's
progress is whether we plan to hold "accountable" leaders and/or those in positions of
authority who might have prevented the 9-11 terrorist attack. The questions of "who"
should be held accountable,"why" and "how" will need to be reconciled by the
Commissioners.

Team 7's current approach on the accountability issue is to tell the 9-11 story via our
narratives and let the administration, Congress and the public make their own decision on
accountability and the influence of human factors. The presumption is that the
Commission would not issue recommendations identifying who should be held to
account and how one would be held accountable as it pertains to actions prior to 9-11.
The team has discussed outlining a general set of professional position criteria against
which all high level government officials, including those politically appointed, could be
subjectively compared. The criteria would include specific experience, expertise,
training and professional development for specific positions. Developing such criteria is
of value because it would allow the Commission to make a statement on what it believes
are reasonable expectations the public should (and should not) have of government
officials without having to criticize the specific officials in key posts prior to 9-11.

Is this the approach the Commission wants to take?

Goal Setting, Prioritization. and Resource Allocation

Given the widely dispersed threats and vulnerabilities across the various modes of
transportation, the potential for the nation's transportation system to be attacked and the
consequences (economic, psychological, etc.) resulting from such an attack remain
significant. It will be important for the Commission to address the issue of how to
manage the risks posed by terrorists across the different transportation modes and how to
prioritize the allocation of both policies and resources to address those risks. Examples
of questions relevant to this issue are:
 • How should the federal government conduct risk management for transportation
security systems?
• What should be the highest resource and policy priorities for transportation
security over the next five years?
• How, specifically, should the federal government more effectively prepare the
country to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the transportation system?

Ways and Means

A critical question relevant to the Commission's mandate is: How should we improve the
processes, procedures and mechanisms by which we provide transportation security in the
field?. The Commission might want to focus recommendations on high priority areas
including:

• Technology: Recommendations on how best to plan, develop, finance, implement

and maximize the use of advanced technology (detection/screening equipment
and information technology) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
transportation security processes.
• Layering: Recommendations to establish a truly "layered" security system that
employs discrete but mutually supporting security vectors that, taken as a whole,
provide security quality assurance in the same way that "redundancy" serves
aviation safety objectives.