Today’s New York Times carries this story about a ruling just handed down in a New Orleans class action suit against the Army Corps of Engineers.

The plaintiffs in the class-action suit dismissed by the judge were many of the hundreds of thousands of people who filed claims here against the corps last year because of the levee breaches that flooded the city. They lined up in cars and on foot and jammed the streets around the agency’s district headquarters, acting out what has been a loudly spoken article of faith since the days in 2005 when water covered 80 percent of New Orleans and ruined the homes of thousands: the corps — not nature, not a record-breaking storm surge and not local politics or local negligence — was to blame.

The judge, Stanwood R. Duval Jr. of the Federal District Court here, a son of South Louisiana, heartily seconded that notion on Wednesday, suggesting that the corps was guilty of “gross incompetence.” But Judge Duval said he was powerless to rule favorably on the lawsuit because the Flood Control Act of 1928 granted legal immunity to the government in the event of failure of flood control projects like levees.

“Gross incompetence.”  That, and malice, inevitably take root in any system where accountability is lacking.  Granted that governments can’t set themselves up to be sued out of existence in on fell swoop (or even one swell foop, as my mama used to say), but we are in desperate need of increased accountability in this country. 

An interesting research project to get to someday would be to look at the prevailing ethos of the lawmakers at the times when such legislation, as the law that gives the Corps immunity from prosecution,  was passed.   My somewhat educated guesstimate is that things like honor and integrity ranked higher then than they do now, and cutting corners and expense rank higher now than they did then.  I think there was likely a time when people and organizations took more pride in the quality of their work than they have in recent history, and lawmakers might have had some belief, or even unconscious assumption, that of course the Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t do shoddy work (or, considering the case closer to home, that professionals on boards wouldn’t act with malice). I think that the lawmakers who gave immunity from prosecution to the Army Corps of Engineers in 1928 never thought that they were extending protection to people doing shoddy work.

I wonder when the adage, “Close enough for government work,”  was coined.  The only information I’ve found is a cached Wikipedia page that says it originated in WWII and originally meant top notch work—that it was good enough for troops overseas.  But over time it came to signify sloppy work, poorly and hastily done work, second rate.  (Indeed, in our current days it’s accurate in its current meaning for what’s provided for troops overseas—like the cheap, inadequate body armor given to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (who were not even allowed to buy their own good body armor).

In any case, I think there has been a shift in what one could reasonably expect between the time when blanket immunity was legislated for government entities and now.  But whether I right about that or so off base as to get a close look at the back side of the moon, we need new legislation that will create accountability.  We have way more proof than we need to know that we can’t count on honor, integrity, or pride of work to keep us safe from the gross incompetence and malice of those who draw their pay from the people whom they victimize.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen

<blockquote>
<h4 align=”center”>As long as you’re a real person and not a spambot, you can contact me readily at:</h4>
<h4 align=”center”>d.alicen@bureaucracyblog.com</h4>
<p align=”center”>You will first get an email asking you to confirm you’re a real person, but after that all your emails will come through without a hitch.</p>
<p align=”center”> I will be happy to hear from you!</p>
</blockquote>