John, The logic of your analysis is persuasive. I favor your option #3. Advance both the UPLR and amend the FPLA whenever and wherever supporters can by recruited in industry, in state legislatures, or in Congress.
Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:35:56 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:50385] Re: new director of government relations at Food >Marketing Institute >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Paul, > > I'm not saying your strategy is wrong, but it is a > chicken-and-egg problem and could go either way. > The original requirement for metric occurred first > in the FPLA (Congress amended the law in 1992 and it > took effect in 1994) and the UPLR was modified for > consistency. On permissive-metric only, the UPLR > has taken the lead because Congressional approval is > not required. > > 48 of 50 States is a big majority, enough to pass > Constitutional amendments. Amending the FPLA and > convincing the two holdout states could occur in > either order, and either action might help tip the > balance on the other. > > Congressional action (FPLA) requires one or more > sponsors in Congress who serious about the need for > metrication. It probably also requires softening > FMI opposition. The FPLA may need some > organizations willing to stand up and lobby for it. > > The UPLR requires convincing two State legislatures > which may not be that much easier than convincing > Congress. The FMI page on metric declares it a > State priority issue so they may be lobbying to > holdout on the remaining States, as well as at the > national level. They have plenty of local members > and may be in far better position to lobby in those > two States than we are. > > Finally, and this is a matter of opinion, the list > of items regulated under UPLR seems a lot less > impressive than the list of items covered under > FPLA. Even if two remaining States agree on UPLR, > as long as most items require dual under FPLA, would > any manufacturer really "break ranks" and use the > UPLR provision? The current issue of not being able > to market in two holdout States is a barrier, but I > think being out there alone on a minor list of > products is a barrier too. Other than to show > general State support, I'm not sure the UPLR is very > important in the big picture. > > Broadly, there are three possible strategies. I > think USMA should continually review which is best > 1) Pursue 50-State UPLR first, then FPLA > 2) Pursue FPLA first, then 2 holdout States on UPLR > 3) Pursue both simultaneously, accept either order > as "the chips fall" > > #3 requires some additional resources or dilutes > available resources. Other than the resource issue, > is there a credible case that pursuing both lowers > the probability of either passing? Would it make > sense for Alabama and New York USMA members to focus > on their State legislature, and the rest of us on > Congress, with USMA headquarters supporting both? > ...
