 |
Re: You're missing the point
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 07-07-2013 - 17:36
>1. Do you believe everybody on the consultation list has equal standing (as Amtrak or the STB did) to oppose the metrics or something in the development process?
The FRA is the regulatory agency, and as such it promulgates the standards. All the other players (Amtrak etc.) must be allowed a say in the process of creating them. Non-Legislative and non-Executive branch participants have equal standing with each other, which has been standard practice with statute and regulation development for decades, at least 9 or 10 of them. Although section 207 also says this, it does so rather sloppily and in a fashion which easily allows misinterpretation (for example yours vs mine). The Court says precisely this, and mentions the fact that even though Amtrak has never wavered from the standard procedure (i.e. has never resorted to the so-called preemptive "regulatory zap"), being sloppy, the language in 207 is unacceptable.
>2. Do you believe everybody on the consultation list must agree with the Amtrak and the STB on the metrics?
No, and this is the reason for the arbitration processes. Section d is there specifically for redress of grievances by a minority, who may have serious issues with the collaborative result (that Virginia Compromise at work again). However, when the arbitrator rules, that's it, and never bank on the arbitrator's ruling in favor of the majority.
The real purpose of section d is to prevent some disgruntled party from completely disrupting the process, as the Tea Party and Necons have been doing with budget negotiations in Congress over the last few sessions (a procedure which is right out of the playbook of Lenin and his Bolsheviks -> loud non-negotiable demands). Sloppy language entered (again) in by not specifically requiring the arbitrator to be a Government one.
The FRA is the regulatory agency, and as such it promulgates the standards. All the other players (Amtrak etc.) must be allowed a say in the process of creating them. Non-Legislative and non-Executive branch participants have equal standing with each other, which has been standard practice with statute and regulation development for decades, at least 9 or 10 of them. Although section 207 also says this, it does so rather sloppily and in a fashion which easily allows misinterpretation (for example yours vs mine). The Court says precisely this, and mentions the fact that even though Amtrak has never wavered from the standard procedure (i.e. has never resorted to the so-called preemptive "regulatory zap"), being sloppy, the language in 207 is unacceptable.
>2. Do you believe everybody on the consultation list must agree with the Amtrak and the STB on the metrics?
No, and this is the reason for the arbitration processes. Section d is there specifically for redress of grievances by a minority, who may have serious issues with the collaborative result (that Virginia Compromise at work again). However, when the arbitrator rules, that's it, and never bank on the arbitrator's ruling in favor of the majority.
The real purpose of section d is to prevent some disgruntled party from completely disrupting the process, as the Tea Party and Necons have been doing with budget negotiations in Congress over the last few sessions (a procedure which is right out of the playbook of Lenin and his Bolsheviks -> loud non-negotiable demands). Sloppy language entered (again) in by not specifically requiring the arbitrator to be a Government one.
