The panel that guided the distribution of $711 million in antiterrorism money in a process that led to New York City's share being reduced by 40 percent is a shadow player in the war on terror, its work kept secret and its members shielded from view. A collection of about 100 law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats from all over the country, the so-called peer reviewers who evaluated proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, took vows of silence, signing agreements that they would not reveal the substance of their deliberations.
Speaking of the reduction in New York's share, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg assailed the process yesterday, telling listeners of his weekly call-in radio program that he had complained to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and planned to fight the cut. "I said, 'Look, you know I'm going to go out there and fight as hard as I can to get this changed,' " Mr. Bloomberg said. "I just think the ways they went about it was wrong."
Even some of the panelists were frustrated by the evaluation process, which involved a complex and rigid system for grading the highly detailed proposals, according to an official who had been briefed on the deliberations by a member of the panel. Homeland Security officials say that in creating the panel this year, they were seeking to institute a new system of evaluating aid applications that would for the first time engage people from around the country, making the judging impartial.
Panelists got to work in March at the National Fire Academy in Emmetsburg, Md. The panel evaluates applications for domestic security aid, but the actual decisions on how much aid to award, based in part on the panel's findings, are made by Homeland Security officials. Officials promised to guard the identities of the panel members to keep them from being pressured, although they were free to come forward themselves, said George W. Foresman, the under secretary for preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security. Thus far, he said, only four have agreed to do so. Mr. Foresman added that the secrecy surrounding the work stemmed from security concerns about not divulging the vulnerabilities of certain localities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/nyregion/03security.html?hp&ex=1149307200&en=f689cbdf64ecee60&ei=5094&partner=homepage