That's how it's been as long as the ad hoc committees have existed.
We should be glad when it works like this - where the ad hoc actually passes a recommendation to the board, and they act on it. What is REALLY NOT OK is when the CRB farks around with that system:
** Not making any decision on a request on which the ad hoc has made its recommendation
** Sending recommendations back for the ITAC to "sharpen its pencils" and change them, rather than giving them an up-or-down decision
** Back-rooming the ad hoc by putting them in a place where they were pressured to make a particular recommendation in the first place (i.e., "Don't bother making that recommendation; we'll never approve it.")
It was issues like that that led to the massive turnover in ITAC membership we had not so long ago. My experience showed me that they could be tracked to a couple of key board members, including the board liaison to the ad hoc. Some of the recent weirdness we've seen in the past few months seems awfully familiar.
K
EDIT - Insert "Kirk is just a bitter, disgruntled grouch" disclaimer here.
Agreed, those are even worse scenarios.
I have heard this more than once. In the end, the buck stops with the committee that has to report to the BoD. They have the 10,000 foot stuff to deal with and god bless them for doing that stuff.
The BoD needs a singular group that is responsible for the administration of the classes. Since there are so many, the CRB needs the Ad-Hocs to do the leg-work and make recommendations. In theory, the AH's are the ground-level, reporting what the class is feeling/wanting/thinking and making recommendations as such.
The issue with IT IMHO is that the drivers don't really want it 'run' like the other classes 'need' to be run. Back when Peter Keene took over SSB and SSC, we talked briefly about how to implement a 'Process' for those classes. In the end, given the wide range of stock HP and TQ numbers, I could not figure out a way to make it work...so you had to just do your best with the tweaking in order to try and keep the parity. Something IT is not used to nor is interested in. I believe fully that once you immerse yourself in that 'tweaking' culture, it is very hard not to try and apply it across the board.
In the end we have to believe that those on the CRB are dong what they think is right for the classes and if (we think) they are missing the mark in the class we love, the drivers need to write in and be counted - hopefully with constructive suggestions.
Agreed w/ that as well Andy.
I don't agree with the decision on the Scirocco but it is an outlier. The CRB supports us and our recommendations 95% (or so) of the time.
My whole issue with this thing is that why is the CRB not held to the same confidence standards and documentation standards as the ITAC (or any AdHoc for that matter). If the CRB is going to deviate from an AdHoc recommendation, there should be a pretty compelling reason for it, and they (CR
should provide that reason(s). In addition to that, the CRB should own those deviations. Without the distinguished gentleman from NC (that's you Jeff
) coming on here and saying that the ITAC made a recommendation that was different than what the CRB implemented, no one would know that the 2080# weight for the Scirocco II didn't come straight from the ITAC. And think about how many members of the IT community don't frequent this board. They have no idea that the ITAC didn't send that weight to the CRB.
So, in the interest of transparency and objectivity, if the CRB is going to overturn a recommendation from an AdHoc, there should be something in the FasTrack entry that indicates this. If everything is on the up and up, there's no reason for the CRB not to own their decision, and let the membership know that's what the situation is. Otherwise, it's really no different than it was 10 years ago, when everything was done behind closed doors.
There are a few people that fought a long, hard, good fight to get IT where it is today. It's a shame if in the end, it really is no different now than it was then.