RE: Plenary Minutes -- On Report Writing and Minority Reports


FROM:	Anthony Mazy
		Office of Ratepayer Advocates

SUBJ:	Report Writing and Minority Reports

Chris raises some interesting issues, but I believe that his analysis is
a little off the mark in several respects:

First, that different attendees had different reasons for supporting the
recommendations is precisely why there needs to be some commentary.
Whatever advantage the chairing party has in proposing text, it still
must pass muster with the entire group.  The only difference is, that
now the vote is about what was or wasn't argued in the workshop, not
whether or not the recommendation should or should not be adopted.

Second, on the contrary, records were kept.  If not in the meeting notes
of the discussion preceding the adoption of a recommendation, then in
the many personal records kept.  There were an great many laptops kept
going in the room for most of these meetings for someone not to have
kept pretty detailed records.  There are a couple of people in the room
whose memories might predictably corellate just a little too closely
with their companies' positions, but I think that most parties will feel
perfectly comfortable judging for themselves the detail and veracity of
any particular set of notes offered.

Third, it is true that there is no limit, practical or otherwise, for
the commentary anticipated.  But, it could hardly lead to a report as
lengthy as the DAWG Report.  While I disagree that the DAWG report was
of little use (the tremendous effort it required was a necessary first
step, given the unexplored character of the subject matter), there is no
meaningful comparison between the two efforts.

Fourth, while it is true that the recommendations speak for themselves,
they are just that, recommendations, not decisions.  As pleased as I am
with my participation in this effort, I hardly regard it as anything
"constitutional" (even with a small "c").  It's not law, or at least not
regulation, yet, and whatever it's eventual interest to "historians", it
will be immediately and keenly of interest to five Commissioners, in why
this or that was,or was not, included.

I'm sure that there are other problems, as yet unidentified, with trying
to explain the adopted recommendations. We'll have to deal with that
soon enough.  This is not intended to ignore those issues.  But the
recommendations need context, and it would hardly be fair to let small
and narrowly-represented, self-selected clusters of parties take pot
shots at the majority viewpoints  --already compromised to garner 2/3
majority supoport--  without letting the majority put their efforts
forward in the best possible light.

After seeing what I perceive to be an order-of-magnitude increase in the
"game playing" on the part of disaffected partcipants in last week's
meetings, I, too, am wary about how collegially we will perform in the
remaining four weeks of this workgroup.  But hand-wringing doesn't suit
any of us, and I think that the majority can be counted on to move
forward constructively with or without unaminity.




> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chris King [SMTP:chrisk@CellNet.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 01, 1998 2:29 PM
> To:	Stacey, Kirsten
> Cc:	'pswg@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov'; 'pswgweb@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov'
> Subject:	Re: Plenary Minutes
> 
> Kirsten,
> 
> I suggest the report be limited to the adopted recommendations and
> minority
> reports, which should be kept very brief. There are several problems
> with
> trying to explain the adopted recommendations. First, different
> attendees
> had different reasons for supporting them; they may agree with all or
> none
> of the reasons a Subgroup Chair might advance for the adoption.
> Second,
> records were generally not kept in the meeting notes of the discussion
> preceding the adoption of a recommendation. I would feel very
> uncomfortable
> trying to reconstruct from memory why something was adopted. Third,
> there
> is no practical limit on such explanations, which could very well lead
> to a
> very lengthy report such as the DAWG Report, which was generally
> agreed to
> be of little use in spite of tremendous effort. Fourth, and probably
> most
> importantly, the recommendations speak for themselves. A group of
> stakeholders met, discussed, and agreed. It's kind of like the
> Constitution; it's of interest to historians why this or that was
> included,
> but it's now the law and it doesn't really matter why something was
> adopted
> in it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris King
> 
> 
> At 02:51 PM 6/29/98 -0700, Stacey, Kirsten wrote:
> >Attached are the Plenary minutes from the 6/25 meeting. 
> >
> >I have been thinking about the discussion Thursday morning. I would
> propose
> >that the Subgroup Chairs write up a summary of the issue and how
> their group
> >arrived at the conclusion that became the final recommendation. The
> section
> >of minority reports is for people who disagree with the conclusion.
> Parties
> >who are supporting the PSWG recommendation can do that in their
> comments. We
> >have set aside time on Monday's meeting for further discussion on
> this
> >issue.
> >
> > In the meantime, I would be interested to hear comments over the
> exploder
> >on how we should proceed.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >Kirsten Stacey
> >
> 
> 
.