Mis Mal and Non-feasance

Academic policy debate in high school and college focuses on a specific policy action and whether such a policy should be adopted. (“Should,” means ought to, but not necessarily will. Definitions are important in debate.) The definition means that it might not be adopted because politicians will not vote for it, but the question is whether it would be a good idea.

One of the legitimate arguments against implementing a policy would be that it would not work. Even if implemented, the policy, would not deliver the desired benefits. Since it would be of no advantage to make the change, we should vote no. Enough debate theory.

One of the “stock” arguments, or ones that every team hits just to throw trash cans in the path of the pursuer, is one of “mis, mal, and non-feasance. Misfeasance is when a bureaucrat or other functionary unintentionally or ignorantly hinders the effect of the plan. There is no malice or wrong doing involved, the agent just makes a mistake. Misfeasance.

Malfeasance is when that agent deliberately sabotages the plan. This might even be illegal activities, but is deliberate and designed. Malfeasance. The final barrier is nonfeasance. This is when the agent merely ignores the implementation and does nothing. This may or may not be intentional or merely ennui. Nothing happens. Nonfeasance.

In order to make the argument as efficiently as possible and use as little time as possible, the argument is presented as, “The affirmative plan will not work due to mis, mal, or non-feasance.” With only 10 minutes to respond to all of the negative arguments, the affirmative rebuttal will be forced to use precious seconds to answer this. Now for the point.

The article about the fire suppression and active fighting made me think of these old arguments. The report of how the fire was handled seemed to detail every aspect of the mis, mal, and non-feasance argument.

The fire was about 1.5 acres for several days and not much was done to actually put it out. It seems that the strategy was mainly involved containing the fire and letting it burn itself out. Nonfeasance. And once the fire began to spread, an insufficient number of additional fire fighters were requested. Misfeasance. Well, maybe malfeasance is not involved, other than a desire to contain costs, as opposed to the fire. But since the mandate for fire suppression agencies is to control the fire, irrespective of the costs, this could be a deliberate attempt to “stay in budget.”

In retrospect, no one expected 50 plus mph winds to “jump” the ridge line of the mountains and speed the fire far beyond any anticipated limits. Future efforts will undoubtedly focus on, in the words of Smokey the Bear, “Snuff it out.”

Then there will no mis, mal, or non-feasance.