NHC Director Bill Proenza re-assig,Ed Rappaport new director

[Frank2]

Thanks, Berwick - I assumed that it was just something heard through the grapevine, but, it's an interesting comment, just the same...

It's a no-win situation for me - I have old friends at both the NHC/NWSFO and HRD, and, since all three organizations are now opposed to each other over this issue, I'll get one of these folks upset with me, no matter what my comment is here...

Oh, well - they're still my friends and I have my memories of working at both organizations, so, I hope they know that my good feelings are the same for all of them...

[AJC3]

To resurrect an old post of mine...

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=89451&hilit=&start=53

"One of the interesting things that people seem to forget all the time is that NHC doesn't even issue watches and warnings unilaterally for the U.S. and PR/USVI.

They will actually PROPOSE watches and warnings (or any changes to existing watches/warnings) either during the pre-advisory conference calls (which take place one hour before each scheduled regular advisory), or by phone, just before a conference call, or in some cases an intermediate advisory. The WFO's will almost always have the final say. In the case of both sides having significant differences, an amicable agreement can be reached in short order. Sometimes, it takes a little more convincing on either sides' part though."

[Frank2]

The WFO's will almost always have the final say. In the case of both sides having significant differences, an amicable agreement can be reached in short order. Sometimes, it takes a little more convincing on either sides' part though."

I don't mean to disagree with a professional, but, some might disagree with that statement since it implies negotiations - the NHC forecaster issues the warning (and coordination is made per the telecon, as you mentioned), and, the NWS forecaster in the area of concern will include this in his local forecast products, similar to a tornado watch issued from the old NSSL, but, unlike a tornado scenario, when the actual tornado warning is the responsibility of the WFO, the hurricane warning is still primarily the NHC forecaster's responsibility, and, is always accepted by the WFO forecaster - even if they might sometimes doubt it's need, in the case of a fringe event, so, to say the WFO forecaster has the final say is not exactly true, since it's often nothing more than a formality...

[AJC3]

The WFO's will almost always have the final say. In the case of both sides having significant differences, an amicable agreement can be reached in short order. Sometimes, it takes a little more convincing on either sides' part though."

I don't mean to disagree with a professional, but, some might disagree with that statement since it implies negotiations - the NHC forecaster issues the warning (and coordination is made per the telecon, as you mentioned), and, the NWS forecaster in the area of concern will include this in his local forecast products, similar to a tornado watch issued from the old NSSL, but, unlike a tornado scenario, when the actual tornado warning is the responsibility of the WFO, the hurricane warning is still primarily the NHC forecaster's responsibility, and, is always accepted by the WFO forecaster - even if they might sometimes doubt it's need, in the case of a fringe event, so, to say the WFO forecaster has the final say is not exactly true, since it's often nothing more than a formality...

Well, I mean to disagree with you directly, Frank. I've been at WFO MLB for 13 years now and this is how things are done here. Watches and warnings are proposed by the TPC specialist, not implemented without WFO input. Negotiations about watches, warnings, break points, etc. ARE, in fact done on and before the conference calls. The proposed watches and warnings are NOT always accepted by the WFO forecaster per se. If I insist on a certain break point within my CWA, I will in fact, get it most of the time. However, it almost never never comes to the point where we can't reach a compromise. That's the point of my post...it's a coordinated effort. Things may have changed since you were at NHC.

[Category 5]

The question for me becomes, who takes the job after this season? Will Ed keep it or will somebody else come in?

[Berwick Bay]

Hurakan posted
A congressional subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on Thursday to address the management crisis at the National Hurricane Center.

Ousted Director Bill Proenza is expected to testify.

Officials said they anticipate the meeting to cause added tension between Proenza and his former staff.
_____________________________________________________

I wonder if there's any chance that the hearings would be on national television, C-Span? [b][/b]

[vacanechaser]

I've got to admit it. As far as the way it was done and the precedent they set, it's bizzare. I've never met anyone who organized their employees into a group, went to the media, and requested the boss be fired. Although I wish I had that power sometimes, being a manager who reports to managers myself, I wouldn't wan't my employees telling me how to do my job. If they felt he was hurting THEM SPECIFICALLY, they should have gone to a director above him IN A PRIVATE MEETING and asked that he be reassigned or talked to. Although I'm still puzzled as to why they did it, the fact that they used the media as an aid to get rid of him should make anyone who is a manager quake in her/his boots. When I've had an intractable problem with my manager, I always got a private meeting with his manager and complained. I wouldn't dream of going to the press, which, by the way, is a firm rule under all corporations and government agencies in this country. The normal procedure that's taken in this country if you break the rule of speaking to the media about internal problems is that you are fired immediately. Why were they allowed to break it?

Once again people either dont listen, or read.... they- the forecasters said in their statements that they had gone over his head and that process was already underway... thats why the forecasters state that the investigation team was sent because of their actions..they came out and said that he had misrepresented their views or statements and undermind the trust in the nhc..they wanted to make the other side of the story clear as they were being questioned.. . you jumped in on Derek saying they should do their job... it sounded to me like they were trying to make it known they could do their job... i think derek would know a little more than you and me as he is close to whats going on....


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team[/quote]


Please don't make a personal statement (insult) about me that I don't listen or read. I don't think that that is fair. I asked a simple question: why were they allowed to bring a personal dispute into the media? It's not about fair or unfair. It's against government rules. And YOU and I would be fired for it.

I thought we were supposed to keep it geared to the facts and always avoid personal attacks?

P.S. I like Derek and enjoy reading him. So don't imply that I "jumped in on" Derek, whatever that's supposed to mean.[/quote]

it was not a personal attack.... i was simply stateing what i thought to be... it has been discussed in this thread and the talk of them stating they went over his head before june was clear... i saw the video of the press conference with franklin they day it was stated... and i am sure you did too.. just seems to me that people did not listen to those statements of the forecasters making it known that regardless of what he had said about the forecasts and the qs, they could still do the job, and that it had damaged the public confedence in the center and the staff...

read your statement again, you did not ask the question, you stated it as a matter of fact..

If they felt he was hurting THEM SPECIFICALLY, they should have gone to a director above him IN A PRIVATE MEETING and asked that he be reassigned or talked to

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[Frank2]

Thanks for clearing that up, AJC3 - good to have the opinion of someone who actually works there today...

Guess in the "old" days, it was a bit less formal (though I do recall the coordination calls would sometimes be pretty involved at times)...

I was with the NWS at a time when it was simpler - for example, FMY was still open (they just had one of the old AFOS units needed to issue their two CLI products per day), or, we'd sometimes lose a microwave signal to EYW because the Saturday night rodeo BBQ in Homestead was too smokey and close to the microwave tower down there (funny but true when it came to those microwave towers and what could cause a loss of signal) - it was more informal back then...

Once I actually had to go up on the roof with a forecaster and bump a dish, because our DIFAX maps had too much noise on them - good memories in those "primitive" days of technology...

Thanks for the update...

Frank

[AJC3]

Thanks for clearing that up, AJC3 - good to have the opinion of someone who actually works there today...

Guess in the "old" days, it was a bit less formal (though I do recall the coordination calls would sometimes be pretty involved at times)...

I was with the NWS at a time when it was simpler - for example, FMY was still open (they just had one of the old AFOS units and issued their one product per shift), or, we'd sometimes lose a microwave signal to EYW because the Saturday night rodeo BBQ in Homestead was too smokey and close to the microwave tower down there (funny but true when it came to those microwave towers and what could cause a loss of signal) - it was more informal back then...

Once I actually had to go up on the roof with a forecaster and bump a dish, because our DIFAX maps had too much noise on them - good memories in those "primitive" days of technology...

Thanks for the update...

Frank

Not a problem Frank. Talking about the "good old days"...

When I got down here in 94, the WSO at MCO had just spun down and DAB was in the process of doing so. The old DAB radar - I forget if it was a 57 (network) or a 74 (local warning) - was still operational and PBI was still sending up RAOBs. MLB has either the second or third 88D (along with Norman OK and Sterling VA) in the country - I think it went operational in October of 91. We still had good old AFOS for inter-office comms and text products, Micro-SWIS and MCIDAS for satellite data, PC-GRIDDS, and some nifty things unique to the office such as LDAR and ITWS.

We had no operational forecast program other than Short Term Forecasts (NOWs) but we did have local warning responsibility. WFO MIA still had forecast responsibility - we simply made suggestions to them in our AFD and they could take them or leave them.

Aug 23 will be my 15th anniversary in the NWS from when I started at NWSFO Albany NY (and coincidentally, the somber 15th anniversary of Andrew's landfall). 15 long years and so many changes...I can only imagine what it was like in the 80s...and even earlier.

[Frank2]

Thanks - it was good reading some of the changes up your way (I couldn't recall if the NWS had a WSO in MCO, though I sure remember the one at DAB - if I'm not mistaken, they used to issue their own product for the 500)...

Actually, November will be 25 years since I went over to the NWS (I was one of the last folks to be trained at sending products by paper tape) - explains why I bought my first pair of reading glasses just yesterday...

I wonder - does the Cracker Barrel still sell those rocking chairs...

LOL

[philnyc]

I've got to admit it. As far as the way it was done and the precedent they set, it's bizzare. I've never met anyone who organized their employees into a group, went to the media, and requested the boss be fired. Although I wish I had that power sometimes, being a manager who reports to managers myself, I wouldn't wan't my employees telling me how to do my job. If they felt he was hurting THEM SPECIFICALLY, they should have gone to a director above him IN A PRIVATE MEETING and asked that he be reassigned or talked to. Although I'm still puzzled as to why they did it, the fact that they used the media as an aid to get rid of him should make anyone who is a manager quake in her/his boots. When I've had an intractable problem with my manager, I always got a private meeting with his manager and complained. I wouldn't dream of going to the press, which, by the way, is a firm rule under all corporations and government agencies in this country. The normal procedure that's taken in this country if you break the rule of speaking to the media about internal problems is that you are fired immediately. Why were they allowed to break it?

Once again people either dont listen, or read.... they- the forecasters said in their statements that they had gone over his head and that process was already underway... thats why the forecasters state that the investigation team was sent because of their actions..they came out and said that he had misrepresented their views or statements and undermind the trust in the nhc..they wanted to make the other side of the story clear as they were being questioned.. . you jumped in on Derek saying they should do their job... it sounded to me like they were trying to make it known they could do their job... i think derek would know a little more than you and me as he is close to whats going on....


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

Please don't make a personal statement (insult) about me that I don't listen or read. I don't think that that is fair. I asked a simple question: why were they allowed to bring a personal dispute into the media? It's not about fair or unfair. It's against government rules. And YOU and I would be fired for it.

I thought we were supposed to keep it geared to the facts and always avoid personal attacks?

P.S. I like Derek and enjoy reading him. So don't imply that I "jumped in on" Derek, whatever that's supposed to mean.[/quote]

it was not a personal attack.... i was simply stateing what i thought to be... it has been discussed in this thread and the talk of them stating they went over his head before june was clear... i saw the video of the press conference with franklin they day it was stated... and i am sure you did too.. just seems to me that people did not listen to those statements of the forecasters making it known that regardless of what he had said about the forecasts and the qs, they could still do the job, and that it had damaged the public confedence in the center and the staff...

read your statement again, you did not ask the question, you stated it as a matter of fact..

If they felt he was hurting THEM SPECIFICALLY, they should have gone to a director above him IN A PRIVATE MEETING and asked that he be reassigned or talked to

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team[/quote]

OK, Jesse, I'll take you at your word. And maybe I wasn't clear about the first part. I knew that they went to higher ups before the meltdown. But you answered my statement selectively. My main thrust was "The normal procedure that's taken in this country if you break the rule of speaking to the media about internal problems is that you are fired immediately. Why were they allowed to break it?" You never addressed that one. And that was my main question. Maybe we'll find out tomorrow...


P.S. I like your site. It's excellent.

[Air Force Met]

The WFO's will almost always have the final say. In the case of both sides having significant differences, an amicable agreement can be reached in short order. Sometimes, it takes a little more convincing on either sides' part though."

I don't mean to disagree with a professional, but, some might disagree with that statement since it implies negotiations - the NHC forecaster issues the warning (and coordination is made per the telecon, as you mentioned), and, the NWS forecaster in the area of concern will include this in his local forecast products, similar to a tornado watch issued from the old NSSL, but, unlike a tornado scenario, when the actual tornado warning is the responsibility of the WFO, the hurricane warning is still primarily the NHC forecaster's responsibility, and, is always accepted by the WFO forecaster - even if they might sometimes doubt it's need, in the case of a fringe event, so, to say the WFO forecaster has the final say is not exactly true, since it's often nothing more than a formality...

Well, I mean to disagree with you directly, Frank. I've been at WFO MLB for 13 years now and this is how things are done here. Watches and warnings are proposed by the TPC specialist, not implemented without WFO input. Negotiations about watches, warnings, break points, etc. ARE, in fact done on and before the conference calls. The proposed watches and warnings are NOT always accepted by the WFO forecaster per se. If I insist on a certain break point within my CWA, I will in fact, get it most of the time. However, it almost never never comes to the point where we can't reach a compromise. That's the point of my post...it's a coordinated effort. Things may have changed since you were at NHC.

I can testify that this is correct. As one who listens to the calls...I've heard first hand the "negotiations." Sometimes...depending on the forecaster...they go well and a good compromise is reached...sometimes it's the old "go pound sand" result.

I won't say which forecasters usually have a tendency for which.

A great example of negotiations occurred this year between JAX WFO and the NHC with Andrea. Her track and intensity (towards the end) was going to necessitate an unwarranted action on their (JAX) part...so the NHC nudged a little.

Of course...it was a flexible forecaster.

[philnyc]

"I can testify that this is correct. As one who listens to the calls...I've heard first hand the "negotiations." Sometimes...depending on the forecaster...they go well and a good compromise is reached...sometimes it's the old "go pound sand" result.

I won't say which forecasters usually have a tendency for which.

A great example of negotiations occurred this year between JAX WFO and the NHC with Andrea. Her track and intensity (towards the end) was going to necessitate an unwarranted action on their (JAX) part...so the NHC nudged a little.

Of course...it was a flexible forecaster."

There's also the problem of local government versus the local office. Here in NYC it costs a tremendous amount of money once a hurricane watch or warning is issued. I think there have been cases where the city officials "pushed back" a little on the local Weather Office because of the potential costs involved. But I have the highest respect for our NWS guys, and felt they never succumbed to that pressure. It must be pretty tough when you have the mayor breathing down your neck...

[tolakram]

from:

http://www.weatherunderground.com/blog/ ... amp=200707

More on the National Hurricane Center controversy
In an article published in the Houston Chronicle yesterday, senior hurricane specialist James Franklin said that employees of the center were not coerced by NOAA management into signing the July 5 letter of no confidence against director Bill Proenza. This view was echoed by NHC's top administrator in an Orlando Sentinel article. Franklin outlined a variety of reasons why the staff lost confidence in Proenza--Proenza lacked experience in hurricane forecasting and showed little interest in learning the science, ignored his employees to the tune of 2000 unread email from them, and lied to the press about his employees' reaction to his reprimand from NWS chief Mary Glackin.

Also in the Houston Chronicle story is the revelation that Proenza never applied for the position of director of NHC. He was demoted into it, according to Daniel Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization. This raises the question, who put Proenza into the job? Why did they do it? Hopefully, this will get answered at today's congressional hearing.

[Derek Ortt]

If Proenza wanted to take the warning responsibility away from NHC, I do not know what to say. We could ahve horribly inconsistent warnings being issued. Could lead to massive public confusion. If that ever occurred, I would support the privatization of the warning responsibility just so it would be handled by a single agency

[philnyc]

If Proenza wanted to take the warning responsibility away from NHC, I do not know what to say. We could ahve horribly inconsistent warnings being issued. Could lead to massive public confusion. If that ever occurred, I would support the privatization of the warning responsibility just so it would be handled by a single agency

First of all, you said you wouldn't comment on anythng unless it was a fact. In this thread, everyone is saying that statement is hearsay.
Secondly, maybe you have something there about privatization of the warning responsibility. We could turn it over to AccuWeather (the company who "sponsored" the Senate privatization proposal last year) and the government can start paying them to do it. At least we know the costs they would charge the government would be quite low, and they have such a good record in the meteorological community.

[Derek Ortt]

That is why I added the qualifier, if. It is not my position at this time, but merely a hypothetical

[Downdraft]

First off, I don't see warnings ever being privatized that would not only require a congressional vote but if it was a private company Congress would also need to exempt them from lawsuits related to those warnings. I don't see the American people ever wanting to surrender that kind of power to a private concern. We aren't talking utility companies here we are talking warnings that can disrupt lives, cause economic hardship or skyrocket costs for local governments. The former bill only concerned forecasts the warnings were still the authority of the National Weather Service.
Moving on I don't see anything happening to any of the forecasters during hurricane season. I think you may see some transfers out of the NHC when winter storms are more the worry than tropical systems. As for Proenza coming back I'll reserve comment on that till early 2009.

[philnyc]

First off, I don't see warnings ever being privatized that would not only require a congressional vote but if it was a private company Congress would also need to exempt them from lawsuits related to those warnings. I don't see the American people ever wanting to surrender that kind of power to a private concern. We aren't talking utility companies here we are talking warnings that can disrupt lives, cause economic hardship or skyrocket costs for local governments. The former bill only concerned forecasts the warnings were still the authority of the National Weather Service.
Moving on I don't see anything happening to any of the forecasters during hurricane season. I think you may see some transfers out of the NHC when winter storms are more the worry than tropical systems. As for Proenza coming back I'll reserve comment on that till early 2009.

I agree with most of what you said, except that utility companies also "can disrupt lives, cause economic hardship or skyrocket costs for local governments." wouldn't you say? The last big blackout in the NE a few years ago was caused because the private utility company (FirstEnergy) didn't want to spend the money to trim the tree branches that fell on power lines and started it all. (See http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2004/jul/pesindustrynews.html) and people DIED in that blackout.


And did your other comment mean that you support turning forecasts over to private companies? Doesn't a forecast of severe weather imply liability if it's a private company, unless we exempted them?

[Frank2]

It seems those on the House subcommittee did a good job in the questions they asked Mr. Proenza...

I only hope that the atmosphere (pun intended) at the NHC will get back to normal under Dr. Rappaport, now that it is a given (by the subcommittee's comments) that the former Director will not be returning to that position - it is time for them to put this period of trouble behind them...

Frank