VZCZCXRO4900
PP RUEHFL RUEHNP RUEHRN RUEHROV
DE RUEHRO #0095 0261043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 261043Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY ROME
TO RUEHFSI/DIR FSINFATC WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHROV/AMEMBASSY VATICAN PRIORITY 0844
RUEHFL/AMCONSUL FLORENCE PRIORITY 3403
RUEHMIL/AMCONSUL MILAN PRIORITY 9781
RUEHNP/AMCONSUL NAPLES PRIORITY 3572
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME PRIORITY 0202
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1500

UNCLAS ROME 000095 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DIR FSINFATC FOR FSI/LMS/CMT 
SECSTATE FOR S/ES-O/CMS, DS/DSS/OP, CA/OCS/ACS, EUR/EX 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AEMR AFSI AMGT ASEC CASC IT
SUBJECT: LESSONS LEARNED - ROME DVC CRISIS MANAGEMENT 
EXERCISE 
 
REF: 08 FSINFATC 2598 
 
¶1.    (U) This is an action request.  Please see paragraph 10. 
 
¶2.    (U) Summary: In November 2008, the Tri-Mission in Rome 
participated in a Foreign Service Institute- facilitated 
Crisis Management Exercise (CME) conducted via Digital Video 
Conference (DVC).  The exercise reinforced expectations that 
the three Missions in Rome would collaborate well in the 
event of a crisis and identified areas for improvement.  Post 
requests additional training in May.  End Summary. 
 
¶3.    (U) With the exception of a few technical difficulties, 
DVC audio and video quality were sufficiently clear and 
facilitated effective interaction.  Post found ninety minutes 
more than sufficient for the crisis management overview 
training in the first session, and we believe this time could 
be shortened.  The three hours allotted for the practical 
exercise portion of the CME were appropriate. 
 
¶4.    (U) The scenarios chosen for this exercise were 
effective and appropriate to Post.  Participants expressed 
interest in additional terrorist-related scenarios in 
subsequent training.  Instead of verbally rehearsing 
responses to a crisis, some participants requested that a 
more "hands on" approach be integrated into future exercises. 
 This may be difficult to implement within the confines of 
the DVC format. 
 
¶5.    (U) Douglas Treat met our expectations and successfully 
addressed attendees' concerns.  His leadership allowed for a 
constructive discussion of management issues throughout the 
sessions. 
 
¶6.    (U) Although both senior and junior level officials 
were well versed in their responsibilities during a crisis, 
we learned that, in particular, there is a surprising 
reservoir of knowledge among junior officers who have had 
crisis experience at previous posts.  This resource should be 
drawn upon in subsequent exercises.  Employees generally felt 
the exercise clarified their roles during a crisis. Some 
participants expressed concern that an over-burdened 
communication system might fail during a crisis and others 
questioned how well the Tri- Mission could operate from 
alternate locations. A thorough test of alternative 
communication capabilities, radio-only communication, setting 
up of emergency portals, and cooperation with local officials 
are elements worth integrating into future CMEs. 
 
¶7.    (U) The exercise made evident the need to make the 
Crisis and Emergency Planning Application (CEPA) -- the 
intranet-based successor to the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) 
-- more accessible to all employees.  Some CME participants 
felt Post needed to better identify how and where to access 
the CEPA.  It was evident that updated hardcopies need to be 
kept on hand in the event that computer systems fail.  It may 
also be beneficial to include a CEPA overview in the 
mandatory security briefings required of all employees, 
American and local, upon arrival at post. 
 
¶8.    (U) Post's CEPA and EAP are currently being updated. 
The revised plan will include procedural and duty-related 
checklists. 
 
¶9.    (U) The most useful aspects of the CMT were team 
building and overall cooperation.  Less useful aspects 
included those related to second and third level decision- 
making on technical or logistical issues during crises; 
greater emphasis should be placed on the broader strategies 
for crisis response.  The collaboration between post and 
Treat prior to the exercise was particularly helpful.  The 
scenarios were plausible, albeit within a highly compressed 
timeframe.  Concerning the training overview of the first 
session, some participants did not see the "value added in 
having a presentation versus reading the slides ahead of 
time."  Other feedback suggested that the first session was a 
bit "vague" and could be made more concise. 
 
¶10.   (U) Action Request: Post requests additional training 
in May, in which it will include more locally engaged staff 
(LES). 
SPOGLI