We can agree to disagree. Though as someone studying public administration, any organization that is admin heavy needs to be critically evaluated. Especially if it over 15%. Taxpayer funds are being used and if used incorrectly its just a waste of money paying salaries instead of getting mission goals completed. A long time complaint of the program is that its a bunch of egg-head scientists who would rather implement studies and write expensive environmental documents instead of doing actual on the ground work. Especially when its a program that continues doing the same thing expecting different results.<div>
<br></div><div>Josh<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:39 PM, lou jacobson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:acaswr@yahoo.com">acaswr@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span></span><span></span><span>All that information should be public. Perhaps someone should put a request in with TRRP</span><span>? <br>
</span></div><div><span></span><span></span><span><br></span></div><div><span>I have to disagree with Josh that an admin to total budget/implementation is a clear indication of how properly funds are being spent. I won't argue that it's not an important factor. I'll even agree that in some cases it can be used as a tool to identify top heavy program design. </span><span>I think the admin to budget/implementation comparisons are important but they are only one factor of many that should be used to judge a program. </span><span>I'd like to see their scope of work, project milestones, budget, etc..., and then see how they're performing based on the current admin load. I don't know,
they could be pissing money down the admin stream but I don't think project success/failure is that black and white. Some programs are inherently admin heavy.<br></span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Lou Jacobson<br>
</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Joshua Allen <<a href="mailto:trinityjosh@gmail.com" target="_blank">trinityjosh@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Tom Stokely <<a href="mailto:tstokely@att.net" target="_blank">tstokely@att.net</a>>; <a href="mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" target="_blank">env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us</a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, December 3, 2011 12:49 PM<div class="im"><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions<br> </div>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"> <br>
<div>It would also be nice to know exactly how much is being spent on administrative overhead versus on the ground expenses. How much an organization spends to accomplish its mission is a clear indication of how properly funds are being spent. Just my two cents...<div>
<br></div><div>Joshua Allen<br><br><div>On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Stokely <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:tstokely@att.net" target="_blank">tstokely@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
All,<br>
<br>
I have had several inquiries about the $36 million figure cited in the Redding Record Searchlight for expenditures to restore the Trinity River's fish. I did not make that statement and I have to assume that the $36 million is just what has been spent on the mainstem "restoration" projects, some of which have clearly failed (filled in side channels), but the article was not clear on that. I'm certain that it's not total expenditures because budgets have been $14-$15 million/year lately, so $36 million would be less than 3 years' budgets at current levels. I know that the "old" Trinity River Restoration Program alone spent something like $70 million.<br>
<br>
My guess is that total expenditures under the Trinity River Restoration Program, old and new, exceed $200 million.<br>
<br>
If somebody knows the real numbers, it would be greatly appreciated. It would be nice to set the record straight so that people know the magnitude of taxpayer money spent on this important program.<br>
<br>
Tom Stokely<br>
Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact<br>
California Water Impact Network<br>
V/FAX <a rel="nofollow">530-926-9727</a><br>
Cell <a rel="nofollow">530-524-0315</a><br>
<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:tstokely@att.net" target="_blank">tstokely@att.net</a><br>
<a href="http://www.c-win.org" target="_blank">http://www.c-win.org</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
env-trinity mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" target="_blank">env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us</a><br>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" target="_blank">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>env-trinity mailing list<br><a href="mailto:env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us" target="_blank">env-trinity@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us</a><br><a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity" target="_blank">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity</a><br>
<br><br> </div></div></div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>