Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?
Date: May 29, 2015 at 7:34:46 AM EDTRalph's comment below is dead on. Be aware that every time the CSB issues a report the firm under investigation complains to their congressional delegation, who then attack the CSB for every reason they can think of: the report was flawed because of "technical reasons," the process was bad, the investigation was bad, the report went beyond the CSB's legislative mandate, lack of CSB expertise, poor CSB management and leadership, or that the report/process was just too public. The are plenty of members of congress who don't think the federal government should have a CSB of any kind. Few members of congress come to the defense of the CSB and their staff. -- Pete Reinhardt
________________________________________
From: Ralph Stuart [rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**ME.COM]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CSB Public Meetings - input?
it's apparently the leadership that's been at issue for some time.
I‰??m not sure if it‰??s the CSB leadership that‰??s been the issue, but that its status as an independent federal agency means that it‰??s in a very awkward political situation, which doesn‰??t seem to be a high priority for federal leadership. It took 8 years for the Board to start up after it was established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and it has not had the legislated 5 members for much of it existence. And its investigation agenda is more often Congressionally driven than strategic, based on the resources available to conduct the investigation.
Given these political limitations, the work that it has produced has been remarkable, which is why DCHAS recognized it with the 2008 Howard Fawcett Chemical Health and Safety Award.
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart
rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**me.com
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
