Is it a really good business strategy for a government to hire the same 3rd
party-plan review team year-after-year?
That sounds about as fair as a Mexican election.
Don't people and political parties in power tend to misconstrue and
accumulate a greater sense of
misappropriated control -- the longer they maintain power? Isn't
corruption something that happens
when the old guard institutions are not changed and the decisions made
in closed door meetings
are not brought out into the open?
So what about when a 3rd-party-team submits their plans to the jurisdiction
they work for? I wonder if we looked at the
statistics of whether the plans submitted by 3rd-party-reviewers
spend as much time in the government plan-review office
as does the plans of their competitors? I wonder of the 3rd party
reviewers receive as many comments as
do their "peers". I wonder if there is a causal relationship that
can be measured in plan review data that dovetails with a
comfortable back-slapping relationship?
These performance indices would be evident if plan review statistics were
made more public.
Most working democracies rotate out political parties after they have had a
run of a few years.
(The 70+ year run of PRI in Mexico being an exception, that was not
without protest in this last election). And to be
fair to the *protesting* Mexicans, the gringos north of your
border...have had the same two parties in power
for more than 150 years...
What I am saying is, bring the measurable statistics out in the open:
Yes, there are messy details with accomplishing this, but it is already
being done, by someone (else).
More on this, later.
Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121215/dff27c7e/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
