Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />;..:..t 11 <br />~f1 <br />t.:' <br />Crr B. Improve the Overview Committee. operation to effectively handle conflict. <br />(See Leadership from Overview Committee below.) <br /> <br />C. Virtually all communications between the Service and the Forum seem to <br />"funnel" through the CRWQO. We suggest that opening channels between <br />the Regional Directors and the Forum would be productive. For example, <br />encouraging Forum members to visit regional offices so available documents <br />could be shared with them to help answer their concerns regarding funds. <br />and staffpower for the SCPo Specifically, we suggest that the Regional <br />Directors be encouraged to communicate frequently and substantively <br />with Jack Barnett, Executive Director of the Forum, who is now located <br />in Salt Lake City. <br /> <br />D. Requesting an outside entity, such as the Office of Policy and Management, <br />to prepare revised functional statements for the Water Quality Office and <br />the regions to clarify the roles of the involved offices. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />The Study Team recommends that Options A, B, and possibly C be adopted <br />immediately. If resolution is not possible within the Overview Committee <br />then Option D should be pursued. We feel that the problems are more those <br />of management, personnel and definition than of organization. Only after <br />failure to improve the situation by these and other 'nonstructural' solutions <br />recommended should an organizational solution be considered. <br /> <br />Action Entity: Overview Committee Members <br /> <br />LEADERSHIP FROM OVERVIEW COMMITTEE <br /> <br />Priority: High <br /> <br />General concern was expressed in the area of the effectiveness of the <br />Overview Committee. It was felt that there is a lack of decisiveness on <br />significant issues and the willingness to take reasonable risk to move <br />the program ahead. While the Study Team felt these comments often <br />only reflected a respondents disagreemen~ with the Service's approach to <br />the SCP, the concern was widespread enough to warrent analysis. Among <br />the comments that reflect this concern were: <br /> <br />--Salinity control should be treated as a special program, an emergency <br />program, and in one case a unique program which the Service has failed to <br />grasp as such. <br />