Backside Protection Trade Offs: California’s Project Selection Process
Once again my local congresswoman, Sharon Runner, ids a ridiculous project play in our California state legislature. Read it for an idea of things to come from our silly government:
During the debate for the 2008-2009 State Budget, no issue has caused more public concern than education funding. School districts, teachers and parents criticized the Governor’s proposed 10 percent across-the-board budget cuts, which would have included reductions to education funding. This proposal is no longer on the table because the Legislature, including Senate Republicans, is committed to fully maintaining school funding. Yet a little noticed proposal by a non-elected board would effectively reduce the amount of money going toward education because of environmental regulations.
Recently, the Air Resource Board (ARB) adopted a proposal that requires school districts to divert money out of the classroom in order to purchase new school buses in order to reduce diesel emissions. As you may recall, the ARB was given broad authority to regulate emissions under the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act, authored by former Speaker Fabian Nunez.
But this proposal, while it claims to improve the environment, carries a hefty price tag, which is especially detrimental to struggling school districts.
The ARB wants school districts to either upgrade or replace older buses in their fleets that do not meet current emission regulations. A retrofit for a bus costs up to $20,000. However, the retrofit is not a viable option for buses that have been in service since the 1970s. Those buses will have to be replaced at a cost of $140,000 per bus.
These are perfectly usable buses!! Congresswoman Runner makes the excellent point that certain members howled when the 10% cuts were originally proposed but now are silent when their global warming projects reduce education dollars. In other words, questionable, but certainly marketable to the public, global warming projects trump education. RIDICULOUS!! From a project management point of view, what is the strategy that is served by this action? Certainly NOT bettering the education of our students. Clearly it is a strategy of protecting one’s derriere from the environmentalist led public opinion.
Do you see the hypocrisy here? Hopefully you work in a company that does not operate like this- or do you? Share your stories of political business run amuck.
Like this post? Stumble it, see “Related Stories” and click on “tags” below.
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via EMAIL or RSS.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Choosing the Right PMO Vision
0 opinions for Backside Protection Trade Offs: California’s Project Selection Process
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: