Fix-it

It really is possible to fix the FBI!

Working with FBI headquarters is like that famous film segment in Goldfinger where James Bond has to fight with Goldfinger in a hall of mirrors, built and familiar to Goldfinger, but a mystery to James Bond. When Bond figures out that what he sees in front of him is never in front he starts to turn the table and when he finally gets behind the mirrors he is able to win. Fixing the FBI requires getting behind the walls the Bureau has built over 75 years.

In getting behind the walls it is necessary to understand that the FBI does not believe it works for the Department of Justice. It views itself as an independent agency that investigates whatever it deems appropriate and if, at the end of the matter or when they have need of a Court’s powers through orders or a Grand Jury, they seek out a Department attorney at Main Justice or in a U.S. Attorney’s Office. There are exceptions to this, but generally the Bureau asks for forgiveness, not permission. This perspective is not wholly unjustified as the FBI director has a ten year term unless replaced by the President. So any change, especially quick change, requires that the change begin with the FBI leadership.

The FBI has two types of leaders at their HQ. Those who pass through as an assignment on the way back to the field as a Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of an FBI field office or Deputy or Assistant SAC. Then there are others who once at HQ stay there for as long as they can, mastering political and organizational infighting, and building as large a kingdom as they can. As I found out, that includes projecting an invulnerability and omniscience about all that is in their investigative mission. I learned this at the start of my tenure at the Justice Department. Coming from a major state prosecutor’s office where I had won accolades from the FBI director for my work with one of the FBI’s joint task forces, I was told that the Bureau had the ability to search through a voluminous quantity of contraband and connect that contraband to current cases and defendants. This was 1989. I could only imagine the computing power and benefits that would be part of any federal investigation and it was part of what drove me to come to DC and join the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

Upon arriving, I started asking to see this amazing capability. After nearly a year of being a pest, I was brought into a very large room in the FBI’s HQ that housed hundreds of filing cabinets containing millions of documents. There was no computer, only a single employee who organized the documents and when necessary searched for them by hand. Hence the reason for the delay– seeing the actual Agency capacity caused the FBI’s mystique to vanish right before my eyes. The flip side was working with talented and devoted FBI agents at HQ and in the field on one of the FBI’s Major Cases. Although it was a computer-crime based investigation, it was not solved with computers but the kind of selfless and hard work of individual agents and teams interviewing countless suspects, executing hundreds of search warrants, and doing the types of things that were then considered old fashioned police work. But even in this great situation, another of the Bureau’s magical powers was displayed. Someone unconnected to the investigative effort leaked that we would be doing a nationwide execution of search warrants and their number– 3000. There was just one small problem, the FBI and US Attorneys did not have the manpower to execute so many warrants, it was a lie. But that claim, reported in newspapers through the United States served to motivate people that we were unaware of to contact the Justice Department to turn themselves in, in the hopes that they might receive more lenient treatment. The FBI’s ability to use the media and to project power it did not have was stunning to watch up close. Lesson two– don’t try to use the media to reign in or control the FBI– it just won’t happen.

Third, the Bureau’s tentacles reach everywhere. This is a blessing and a curse for those in the FBI and those outside its leadership. This situation of mission creep is not new. In the early 1990s at an FBI and Assistant United States Attorney training conference, the sole Hispanic Special Agent in Charge at the time complained publicly that the Bureau could not continue to take on more responsibility without ridding itself of responsibility for cases or investigations that other organizations could handle. (I mention his background, because this type of public acknowledgement and criticism would have gotten any regular SAC significant discipline). Chief among them were bank robberies. After all, the typical haul of a bank robbery at that time was typically very small, the money turned people purple or orange from the dye packs that were typically inserted, and the bank was insured against loss. Clearly local law enforcement alone could handle this and in fact it did, even back then in most every case. The FBI field offices, however, still turned out in full force to respond to the alarm, and then went back to their offices after turning it over to the locals. Why? Because they were able to get credit for responding, zealously guarded its turf, and served to justify requests for additional manpower. (One can also add that in retirement, former FBI agents typically took on other positions at banks, financial institutions, and major corporations– so developing expertise in these areas and defending that turf represented a way of ensuring retiring agents who wanted to continue working with great options.

So, how does one FIX the FBI? First, by order of the Attorney General, jurisdiction over crimes is pared down. The FBI can be amazing. Its agents are indeed some of the best investigators and crime fighters in the world, but they need to be targeted and they must be seen as a finite and limited resource. The question needs to be asked by the Justice Department– what can we live without the FBI investigating and who can take over the responsibility being shed? This could mean closing some field offices, operations in foreign countries, and reassigning responsibility to other agencies. In DC this usually means you’ve lost turf and power, but we no longer have the luxury of having the FBI everywhere and no where at the same time. Moreover, with the bevy of FBI problems– misconduct, misinformation, waste, and abuse, standing down and pulling back seems a wise option so they can focus on what they and only they can do.

As noted above, change must come from within the Bureau. Because personnel is policy, management personnel need to be changed from the top to the bottom of FBI Headquarters. This should not be hard or scary. Reassignment of senior field personnel to HQ for a limited amount of time until they can conduct a review of HQ operations in their new posting will bring in fresh blood, experienced agents who understand how HQ decisions affect work in the field, and who also from experience know who at HQ is helpful and who is not. An 18 month billet should suffice. Those removed need to be placed in the field in subordinate positions and should they choose to leave for private employment, that will provide another benefit– room for promotion of those who embody the best of the FBI but who had no place to go because the person in that job would not leave or simply played musical chairs with other senior HQ leadership personnel.

What about the new FBI director? This individual must be someone who is at the tail-end of their professional career and not someone looking to use the position to improve their options when they leave. They can also not be an outsider. The internal politics of Justice and the Bureau are world class. They exist as part of a multi-layer and multi-player game. And it is likely that the most vicious attacks will come from within. The nominee must be someone who was in FBI leadership for some time but left and has an established track records of fearlessness, administrative politics, and strong connection to the President and Attorney General. They will need all the support they can get because reforming a bureaucracy is impossible if attempted alone. Those being replaced, moved or re-assigned must know that a complaint up the chain will not save them or create problems for the new Director.

And finally some FBI operations must be shut down. First, the FBI’s press office must be closed. Any and all public communications should come through the DOJ Office of Public Affairs overseen by the Deputy Attorney General. Second, the FBI’s Office of Legislative Affairs must be closed down as well, with all legislative work done through the Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs. One Justice Department, not two.

While the first six months will be miserable– the field agents and their leadership will applaud the changes, the United States Attorneys will join in because they will not be forced to simply wait for what walks in the door in terms of cases and investigations, and more resources will be available for those priorities established by the President and overseen by the Attorney General working in true partnership with the Director of the FBI.