Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01446 <br /> <br />mitigate employee impacts/uncertainties. That's the official line. Some employees <br />involve in WAPA process have spoken to the press and have told a different story. A <br />significant fact revealed the consultant to WAPA encouraged WAPA to speed the <br />process because of political concerns. In other words get it done before anybody <br />figures out what your doing. Also, constantly change your position and/or keep your <br />process in the proposal stage. Also, bury your critics with numbers which take time <br />to analyze. Move on to different areas as soon as possible. When your proposal is <br />final, implement as quickly as possible. One customer caught on early. From a <br />customer letter to Mr. J.M. Shafer: "yet the reaction by Western at the May 11 and <br />June 19, 1995 meetings only reinforced the belief that a decision has already been <br />made and comments, while being politely accepted, will have no appreciable <br />impact". <br /> <br />A recent article in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel revealed more about WAPA's <br />transformation process. It was revealed that WAPA senior managers impeded the <br />WAPA employees reviewing the plan from deviating from the initial "Will Be" plan <br />developed orivatelv by WAPA' senior managers. They were only allowed to deviate <br />if and only if they could prepare a complete business plan for any alternative to <br />WAPA's initial plan. To make sure that no one could submit anything of significance, <br />WAPA managers did not allow any free time to do an alternative so no alternatives <br />were prepared. As stated above the consultant made sure that all time was limited <br />by scheduling or finding other things for the review team to do, thereby excluding any <br />original thinking during the review process. The result WAPA's plan was essentially <br />the s<lme as before the review process started. Moreover, any significant changes <br />to the plan were WAPA's manager's ideas. <br /> <br />. WAPA claims that 79 employees in Montrose are no longer needed by WAPA to <br />meet its mission requirements. <br /> <br />What WAPA essentially is saying that other WAPA offices can pickup CRSP's work <br />because CRSP functions have not gone away only the employees. WAPA <br />transformation transitions costs sent to the Governor's office showed relocation costs <br />for 19 employees (didn't identify if all 19 were Montrose staff) with 13 of those <br />employees assigned a 20% charge to CRSP. This means that only 9 employees will <br />be assigned 100% to CRSP at another location. The present staff at Montrose <br />according to the Department of Energy is 137. Moreover, this historical downsizing <br />when CRSP's mission continues to expanded should disturb the Upper Basin. <br />However, continued pressure from the Federal government over the years to reduce <br />staff and political infighting within WAPA has resulted in a reduced workforce at <br />Montrose from 160 in 1966 to it present size of 137. <br /> <br />The core problem with WAPA's proposal is that it assumes that CRSP business will <br />be accomplished by its new organization without acknowledging that CRSP has <br /> <br />4 <br />