From: | zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu |
Date: | 05 Aug 1996 10:12:16 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | inadvisability of executive summaries |
From: Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu> Subject: Re: inadvisability of executive summaries To all interested parties: Re: RAB questionnaire from CalEPA's Dept. of Toxic Substances Control In answer to the query: "Is the military's Co-Chair distributing executive summaries of key documents in place of full reports?" May we state that if there is a move afoot to abridge adequate data at the RAB subcommittee level then we disapprove of it. These so-called summarizations are, in our considered opinion nothing but a concerted attempt to spoon-feed "pablum" down the gullets of unsuspecting subcommittee members. If there is a new nation-wide policy from the DoD regarding this then they should attempt to justify it unequivocally from the get-go. RABs and/or the public must not be turned into mushroom factories ("Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em night soil"). To relegate them to digesting someone's regurgitations or over-simplifications will be viewed in the end as counter-productive or at the worst obstructionistic. An example would be the consultant/contractor: In all fairness to them they are often asked to encapsulate their findings into impossibly small compendiums or a synthesis of conclusions. Oftentimes this has been erroneously interpreted as giving license to interpret and/or delete potentially embarrassing or insufficiently researched findings. In other words the temptation to place their own spin on it through editorializations or glossing over the facts. We believe it is fallacious to assume that one could transform by distillation, all pertinent data relating to highly complicated and technical studies into simple pat answers. The spectre of superficiality then has a tendency to raise its ugly head. The DoD's argument, we contend, is that they believe most subcommittee members don't have the technical background and/or expertise to properly evaluate a report. This may be true, but is it fair to second-guess them? Defense has an obligation to bring these lay-members up to speed on most aspects of remediation and restoration a priori or before the fact, so that they can attempt at least some semblance of an effective evaluation regarding their findings. DoD has made some headway in this department but the problem is one of sufficiency. There are those who will then point to the adequacy of funding after Congress partially eviscerated DERA and BRAC funding, however efforts could probably be promulgated to overcome the above within existing strictures. In summation may we reiterate that executive summaries are fine when accompanied with all relevant data but not as stand-alone documents. What do you think? Donald Zweifel CalEPA Advisory Grp Mil. Base Closure P.S.: These POV's don't necessarily reflect the views of the Adv Grp or CalEPA. |
Follow-Ups
|
Prev by Date: Re: Chem weapon incin on trial Next by Date: Re: inadvisability of executive summaries | |
Prev by Thread: Re: Chem weapon incin on trial Next by Thread: Re: inadvisability of executive summaries |