Improving the bureaucracy

[s.vannostrand at kodak.com]

Ron, 
Thanks for the excellent info.  You are much closer to this than I.  In my 
note to the CB I asked about the value that they bring to the process. 
Clearly one value is that they have the confidence of the EC and that a 
process that doesn't include them will not be approved.  My question still 
stands, but this one value may be sufficient to base a new proposal, 
taking into account this current reality.

Sometimes you need to get as much of your agenda implemented as possible 
and not hold out for high risk things.  If this is the only "compromise" 
than maybe this is a way out. Then we can focus on integrating the contest 
board in our process.

--Lance






Ron Van Putte <vanputte at nuc.net>
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
12/10/2002 03:37 PM
Please respond to discussion

 
        To:     discussion at nsrca.org, Fuqua John D Contr AAC/YAA <john.fuqua at eglin.af.mil>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Improving the bureaucracy




s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:

> It would be hard for me to believe that the AMA EC did not include the
> contest board because of the perception that the board is either
> incompetent or incapable of doing the right thing.  The AMA EC must have
> logical reasons for its actions, even if we don't know them.  As an
> outsider, I must rely on the proper communication channels in the
> organization: our SIG officers.
>
> If these officers don't know the reasons for the EC behavior,  or why 
they
> are reacting this way, then the key linking officers need to make some
> phone calls and find out, then communicate to the rest of us what we 
need
> to know.  I don't see how becoming offended will help, if there are 
facts
> that still need to be learned.


I am the author of the annex proposal.  I am also the NSRCA vice
president.  After I found out about the AMA Executive Council vote on
rejecting the proposal last Friday, I talked with Steve Kaluf.  Then I
talked with Dave Brown.  Both calls were lengthy.  Both said that the
proposal was not detailed enough and both said that a compromise would
be possible, but that any compromise would have to include an annex
approval process by the contest board.  In a private discussion with
John Fuqua, I learned that he had talked with Steve Kaluf in early
October, right after the proposal was received.  Apparently Steve told
John that he was concerned with the proposal and he thought the EC would
probably stop further action on the proposal if it made it through the
contest board's initial vote.  John told Steve that he didn't want the
proposal to go all the way through the initial vote, only to be
rejected.  He suggested that Steve take it to the EC before the initial
vote.  Two months later Steve did take it to the EC.  This is how we got
where we are.

Ron Van Putte

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021210/3ba9a1f5/attachment.html