An Interesting Dilemma Of The Conflict On How Good A Vision We Should Have
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Monday afternoon, May 10th, the members of the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group received the draft report that we will be taking action on when we have our group’s final meeting on Friday, May 14th. The public also has the ability to take a look at the “draft” of what the plan looks like right now by going to this link . Having shared this background information, as a member of the Stakeholder group, the status of where things stand presents a rather interesting conflict of where this proposal should go and how our group should deal with what has been presented as “our” consensus vision of what Nevada’s future should look like.
The general public perception of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group has been that it is made up of a narrowly focused group of interests who are intent on getting more government spending for themselves. It is part of an overall thrust to justifying the necessity of there being a pre-ordained increase in the variety of Nevada taxes and the amounts of revenue coming to state coffers. This game plan is something that has been written here along the way as well.
In reviewing the proposal that our group of “Stakeholders” will be acting on, the question is somewhat along the lines of “what the heck do we do with this?" "Where do you even try to start?"
Although the Vision Stakeholders group is given credit for being the source of the document -- it really represents the Moody’s consultant’s perspective of what they consider the input we gave along the way. This was done in a process and timeframe which didn’t actually string together in a way where “the consensus” that is attributed to us could have been achieved. At this point, the words being put into our mouth don’t really represent anything more than what might be something a majority of participants could agree to adopt.
Given the possible desire to consider time spent not wasted, there might be more willingness to accept the overall piece as being good enough for government work and move on. Likewise some with very specific agendas, might find elements in the writing to be an accomplishment they would like to point at having acquired.
At this point, the quality of “vision” is very questionable to at least one member of the group who I have the ability to speak for (myself). My view is that this document (at this point) is an extremely disjointed set of politically-correct concepts thrown at the wall in hopes that something might stick and be included in a government-centric outcome. It’s scope and assorted variety of ideas don’t constitute a substantive vision which most Nevada citizens can either buy-in on or even be capable of understanding.
In my mind, the parts of the document don’t connect to anything else (or even to parts of itself) which flow together to build anything out of. Conflicting observations of “problems” aren’t justified with either strategies that relate with fixes or the measurements which say anything about getting results that matter. There are also a number of these observations that aren’t even problems which require attention.
You could see a large portion of the report as being a pre-established agenda of activities in search of a reason for being funded and then implemented…regardless of whether anything worthwhile is accomplished.
If you aren’t of the true believers, in the congregation of “government is the solution for everything” – how much improvement do you really want for an extremely lacking document. Do you really want to “fix” a report that could easily join the stack of other political-cover “studies” developed in the past that haven’t been carried out? If you want to discredit the worthiness of going forward with a plan that you think is a bad idea -- your success could be easily accomplished by having a report written the way the Moody’s report has been written.
Monday afternoon, May 10th, the members of the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group received the draft report that we will be taking action on when we have our group’s final meeting on Friday, May 14th. The public also has the ability to take a look at the “draft” of what the plan looks like right now by going to this link . Having shared this background information, as a member of the Stakeholder group, the status of where things stand presents a rather interesting conflict of where this proposal should go and how our group should deal with what has been presented as “our” consensus vision of what Nevada’s future should look like.
The general public perception of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group has been that it is made up of a narrowly focused group of interests who are intent on getting more government spending for themselves. It is part of an overall thrust to justifying the necessity of there being a pre-ordained increase in the variety of Nevada taxes and the amounts of revenue coming to state coffers. This game plan is something that has been written here along the way as well.
In reviewing the proposal that our group of “Stakeholders” will be acting on, the question is somewhat along the lines of “what the heck do we do with this?" "Where do you even try to start?"
Although the Vision Stakeholders group is given credit for being the source of the document -- it really represents the Moody’s consultant’s perspective of what they consider the input we gave along the way. This was done in a process and timeframe which didn’t actually string together in a way where “the consensus” that is attributed to us could have been achieved. At this point, the words being put into our mouth don’t really represent anything more than what might be something a majority of participants could agree to adopt.
Given the possible desire to consider time spent not wasted, there might be more willingness to accept the overall piece as being good enough for government work and move on. Likewise some with very specific agendas, might find elements in the writing to be an accomplishment they would like to point at having acquired.
At this point, the quality of “vision” is very questionable to at least one member of the group who I have the ability to speak for (myself). My view is that this document (at this point) is an extremely disjointed set of politically-correct concepts thrown at the wall in hopes that something might stick and be included in a government-centric outcome. It’s scope and assorted variety of ideas don’t constitute a substantive vision which most Nevada citizens can either buy-in on or even be capable of understanding.
In my mind, the parts of the document don’t connect to anything else (or even to parts of itself) which flow together to build anything out of. Conflicting observations of “problems” aren’t justified with either strategies that relate with fixes or the measurements which say anything about getting results that matter. There are also a number of these observations that aren’t even problems which require attention.
You could see a large portion of the report as being a pre-established agenda of activities in search of a reason for being funded and then implemented…regardless of whether anything worthwhile is accomplished.
If you aren’t of the true believers, in the congregation of “government is the solution for everything” – how much improvement do you really want for an extremely lacking document. Do you really want to “fix” a report that could easily join the stack of other political-cover “studies” developed in the past that haven’t been carried out? If you want to discredit the worthiness of going forward with a plan that you think is a bad idea -- your success could be easily accomplished by having a report written the way the Moody’s report has been written.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 5/11/2010 3:41 AM 
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Nevada Nevada Budget and Taxes Nevada Vision Stakeholders
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Nevada Nevada Budget and Taxes Nevada Vision Stakeholders
Well, I too agree with it there should be budget fix for this agriculture sector but one cannot just depend on one narrowly focused group of interests. We shouldn't be neglecting out the rest of the section which can increasingly grow with time and help in this sector.
Visit our Website : http://www.advancednutrients.com
Blogs -
http://hydroponics-nutrients.blogspot.com
http://growersunderground.com/blog
Reply to this