This is a transcript of some of the testimony. It's a good read. You should have no questions about what he did wrong after reading that.

Moderator: S2k Moderators
jschlitz wrote:Interesting read.
It does sound like he did explicity "test the will" of his supervisors, etc. Sounds like he made some critical errors (such as replacing the header that caused the pan pan), etc. So, yes, there's that side of it. He wasn't a good fit and needed to go.
But I also see a LOT of references to following "procedure" for communicating NOAA/NCEP policy & budget issues to the public.
When the Admiral states this had nothing to do with the media & Quickscat, or that this first letter was not a reprimand, I have to respectfully disagree. If that letter isn't a reprimand, I don't know what is. And reading between the lines, it's very apparent to me that behind closed doors, the higher-ups at NOAA were quite PO'd their little party was ratted out, regardless of how professionally they spin this.
I also found it very interesting that one of the "recommendations for improvement" for the TPC is "stronger integration with its parent organization". Don't let that one slip by you folks, there is an agenda here on both sides.
terstorm1012 wrote:Right. I don't want to cause trouble by saying this, but I've sensed NOAA has an inferiority complex about some things, and this was one of the few things Proenza was right about (though I agree with his replacement.)
CourierPR wrote:Complacency, be careful, the STORM2KGB is lurking.
vbhoutex wrote:No, you got warned for a personal attack and for bringing political into a discussion that does not need to be political. The warning stands!!! I do not need to look back through the posts to determine if it is fair and neither does anyone else.
CourierPR wrote:Complacency, be careful, the STORM2KGB is lurking.
philnyc wrote:vbhoutex wrote:No, you got warned for a personal attack and for bringing political into a discussion that does not need to be political. The warning stands!!! I do not need to look back through the posts to determine if it is fair and neither does anyone else.
This discussion is political by nature. Why wouldn't we be allowed to bring politics into it? Almost every post about the NHC/Proenza deal has brought politics into it, whether it's from the right or the left... How is this not political? It is about people losing or keeping their jobs in government positions, depending on what they say to politicians. There's been testimony in front of Congress. That's political by nature, no?
philnyc wrote:CourierPR wrote:Complacency, be careful, the STORM2KGB is lurking.
That's really funny! I hope everyone can get the humor in it. It's obviously just a joke.
CourierPR wrote:FCI, you are correct, it was not meant as a joke. Obviously, you know for a fact that everyone in charge at storm2k has been offended by that comment. Yes, the rules are clear. However, the interpretation of those rules is sometimes arbitrary and capricious. If my previous comment and this one result in my being banned or suspended, then those who would do so are very small indeed.
Users browsing this forum: Cpv17, redingtonbeach and 41 guests