Kent Crispin wrote:
>Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing
>takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as
>I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the
>process.
If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process moves too
far down the road, then it has actually *saved* time, as that obstacle
won't have to be faced later after the policy is more fully developed or
when it is implemented. No one claims that this doesn't add some time to
the process. But it does not slow the process down "indefinitely," which
is all I was trying to address.
And really were talking about a couple of weeks here. You need to send
notice to the community at large that you'll be holding a hearing, and
then set aside a day to hold it. That's it.
>Put it this way -- what prevents the fair hearing from becoming a
>fillibuster?
Because there is no procedural mechanism permitting filibusters. If you
keep talking, the members of the Research Committee will simply pick up
and leave. Or at least that's the way it should work. If that's unclear,
then perhaps we can add language giving the committee discretion to open
and close discussions.
-- Bret
Original series of posts:
>On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>
>> >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing
>> >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them
>> >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee
>> >proposal that someone does not like.
>>
>> I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing
>> allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a
>> better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee.
>> Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow
>> down the process.
