WSP03445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Mr. David L. Wegner October 10, 1988 Page 2 Second, the role of constituent groups in relation to the study teams should be clarified. It was repeatedly emphasized at the meeting that the study teams are intended to be technical in nature and are not intended to include any membership at a policy level. However, as you well know, decisions about studies. based as they must be upon interpretation of direction given from superiors, can often carry with them policy implications. For that reason, constituent groups should be given an opportunity to participate on each of these teams. Third, we believe that the ~ogr~ doc~ent should define a structure and process for each team. It should designate a team leader for each team. Meeting notices should be required and should be distributed to team members and interested parties. Meetings should be open to interested parties. Agendas should be prepared for each meeting and minutes kept and distributed to team members and interested parties. The precedent for this suggestion is the Upper Colorado River Endangered Species Recovery Program. Fourth, constituent groups and state agencies should become part of the Executive Review Committee. The one single point made most clearly at the meeting was that the basin states and other affected interests wish to participate at a policy level, at the very least, as directed in the memoran4um-of June 16, 1988 from Assistant Secretaries Ziglar and Horn. Neither we nor many of the other interests represented at the meeting felt comfortable being consigned only to a so-called "focus group", even if, such group or groups would be given data on a monthly basis..~'Being ostracized to such a satellite position offers -us- only the opportunity to be ignored. Pifth, the program document should include, or have appended to it, a budget, including breakdowns for each team. the Executive Review Committee. consultants and the program manager. Funding sources should be identified. Sixth, the roles of the program manager, senior scientist and economic consultant need to be clarified. It is difficult to imagine finding a scientist with a multidisciplinary background to match all of the issues that are presented for study. Likewise, economists tend to specialize, much like other professionals do, and it is entirely possible that an economist fully schooled in some of the issues may have essentially no background in others. In turn, the role of the program manager is not described. He should be delegated a specific role as it relates to the two study teams and the integration team and as it relates to the work of the senior scientist, the economic