Proenza's testimony: expects to be back as center director

[tolakram]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Medi ... timony.pdf

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.

[terstorm1012]

reading it now. I agree with Dr. Masters---time to put this drama behind us. It's over, it's done, let's let the great men and women down there do their jobs.

[Frank2]

Interesting reading, as you said, though it makes me sad that internal issues (such as the employee meeting) are on display (by law) for all to read...

As some here said - hopefully this will quickly come to an end, though a new selection process is likely to begin very soon...

As my late sister would say - those involved need to pray for God's guidance in making their choice...

[jasons2k]

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]

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.)

[Berwick Bay]

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.

Yes JSchlitz, "stronger integration with the parent organization", that goes along with what I've been saying. Look for a possible reorganization with people in the hurricane forecast center "knowing their place" within the organization. Also you are right in catching the comment about "budget issues being communicated to the public". Thats at the core of what all this is about. Cozy relationships between govt. and private industry are not be delved into too deeply by the public. Higher ups want their purchasing policies to be "behind closed doors". At least thats my opinion.

[Berwick Bay]

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.)

Its very telling "terstorm" that you have to be worried about "causing trouble" simply because you stated your opinion. I'm glad you "got it off your chest".

[Complacency]

I got warned for stating my opinion.

A common theme I have noticed is that every time someone supports Bill Proenza, someone else in this forum reprimands that person by stating it is better to keep quiet with the limited knowledge we have then ask important questions and have a constructive dialogue/debate (and that if you support Bill Proenza you are bringing politics into the discussion... ...I thought by supporting the NHC you were also bringing politics into the discussion as well, after all the NHC is coordinated by our government, right?!).

I will not name this person for fear that I may be permanently banned...but I invite you to search the threads to judge for yourself the accuracy of my observation.

I have realized that since it is not a right but a privilege to be on storm2k, that there are some restrictions necessary and the notion of freedom of speech is not completely embraced. Oh well.

In the end, it might be worth it...I love storm2k! It is the best weather forum that I have found on the internet!!! (how's that for sucking up?...Note: I am also being genuine at the same time in case you thought I was being sarcastic!)

[vbhoutex]

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.

[mf_dolphin]

I second that David.

After reading that testimony there's no doubt in my mind that a replacement is the right course.

[CourierPR]

Complacency, be careful, the STORM2KGB is lurking.

[Downdraft]

Complacency, be careful, the STORM2KGB is lurking.

Now that's just plain unfair! Considering the low tolerance the staff has to political comments at all in here I'm amazed they've allowed some of this to go as far as it has. It is an issue and it is political but in another thread now we have people screaming first amendment like that's the holy grail of defenses. You have the right to say anything you want, you have the right to complain about anything you want and you have the right not to be thrown in jail for it. BUT you have no right to not get fired for it, not get warned for it or not get banned for it. You take any action you need to accept the consequences for the action.

[x-y-no]

Read your PM's CourierPR

[HurricaneJoe22]

Hurricane center report likely dooms Proenza
http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/176380.html

[philnyc]

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]

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.

[vbhoutex]

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?

No, what I am talking about is any discussions that lead to the dems or the republicans, blah, blah, blah, or Bush blah blah balh. It isn't about that!! Yes I understand the "political" nature of it all too well, but we are not going to get into that here.

Just because this is a congressional hearing, doesn't mean it has to be a "political" discussion.

[fci]

Well I think the handling of the Proenza situation has been handled terrificly by S2K. I have read comments both Pro-Proenza and Anti-Proenza and if there has been censorship or threats they have been transparent to me.

I appreciate the links to articles, news reports and especially to the testimony provided in this thread. I feel like the facts are out there for all to see and to come to their own conclusions.

The dialog via several threads has been well rounded and as time has gone by there has been a major shift in support of the decision to remove Proenza from his post. Initially, there was an outcry against the ousting and public complaints about Proenza and I did not see ANY warnings or threats by S2K.

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.

Sorry, its not funny to me. It was probably NOT a joke when posted and it offends the people at S2K who keep this thing running.

There has been plenty of conjecture as to what happened and people have voiced strong opinions on both sides of the issue. S2K's requirement to try to keep Politics out of discussions has been well documented in their rules and so stated by Mods.

This issue is a tough one because there is inherent "political-ness" to it. References to politics have appeared but when it gets to Dem. vs. Rep. or directly calling out Pres Bush; it crosses the line and I respect S2K for not allowing it.

Look, this is a private message board and the rules are clear.
If you want to play here, you play by the rules.
I accept that and everyone else should, and HAVE to.
Simple as that.
It is fair and they have a great board here because they keep the dialog on message and don't allow it to deteriorate.

I'm off my soapbox.
Thanks.

[CourierPR]

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.

[fci]

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.

The folks here at S2K are very sensitive to comments that may be critical and/or detrimental to the Weather Community. In the past I stepped over the line and they explained to me that I had to adhere to the rules that they have clearly posted.
The audience for this site is very far reaching and as members of a "private board" we have to be sensitive to what we say.
Suffice it to say for me; that this board is the best that I have seen and I respect and understand their wishes.
If they let comments run amuck, they risk losing a lot of the content that is so unique to this site and I can't blame they for one moment for their diligence in policing it.
So, my suggestion to you is that if you wish to remain part of the S2K community, you should refrain from offending it.
It really isn't worth it.
Enjoy S2K and hold your tounge when you think they are overstepping their bounds. They truly have S2K's best interest in mind.