Her= e is a compromise proposal. It DOES NOT involve terminating the employment of anyo= ne currently employed under a state convention/NAMB cooperative agreement. Als= o, it is budget neutral to the NAMB, the old-line state conventions, and the pioneer state conventions.
The
highlights of the compromise are as follows:
FOR OLD-LINE STATES:
Con=
sider an
old-line state convention which has “y” number of people who – on a weighted
average basis – have 60% of their salary covered by the NAMB via cooperativ=
e agreements.
In that case, then the NAMB is free to transfer approximately .6y numb=
er
of people to some "out of state" place which they feel is most
strategic. However, the old-line convention could step in and agree to pay =
100%
any person’s salary and thus keep him on their payroll.
Not=
e: In
actual practice, there would be "weighting" going on due to the f=
act
that not all people are receiving the same salary. Also, only some integral
number of people could be re-assigned from an old-line state to a pioneer
state.
FOR PIONEER-STATES
All=
workers
in a pioneer state would end up working within that same state. Any given
worker would become an employee of either the NAMB or the state convention.=
At
the end of this process, the whole thing would be budget neutral for both t=
he pioneer
state convention and the NAMB. Budget neutrality would be achieved by adjus=
ting
the number of people that end up either working exclusively for the state
convention or working exclusively for the NAMB. There would have to be some
allowance for "quantization" error to deal with situations
where either the state or the NAMB would have to chip in slightly
more than before in order that the "last person" would =
be
working 100% for one or the other agency.
The= NAMB would have the right to substitute people currently in the state with others from outside the state on a one by one basis for people it is funding. Those leaving the pioneer states due to these substitutions would be assigned by = the NAMB elsewhere. The idea is to bring the right talent to the right place. <= /span>
Not= e: For pioneer states a "state" includes all the states within a gi= ven "state convention".
Key= aspects of this compromise:
1. =
All
cooperative agreements become null and void because all personnel previously
covered by them end up working for -- and having their salary fully funded =
by
-- either a state convention or the NAMB
2. = No one gets a pink slip.
3. =
The
scheme is budget neutral for the pioneer state conventions and the NAMB.
4. = The scheme is budget neutral for the old-line state conventions because when a person is transferred by the NAMB from the old-line state convention to a pioneer territory there is a loss of revenue offset by an equal reduction in expense at the old-line state convention.
5. = Old-line states would have the preemptive right to retain the services of a per= son currently covered by a cooperative agreement by assuming the NAMB portion of that person's salary.
6.&= nbsp; Old-line states will lose some workers but they don't have ongoing requirements to subsidize pioneer states.
7. =
There
are more “boots on the ground” in the pioneer states because of the transfe=
r of
people from old-line states to the pioneer states
This is a compromise position and is different than any of my previous proposals and also different from the interim recommendation of the task fo= rce.
Differences between the Task Force’s Proposal and t=
his
compromise
The
task force’s proposal is not explicit in a number of areas. The compromise
spells out certain things that the task force’s proposal does not. The
following is based upon my interpretation of the task force’s recommendatio=
n:
Positive points of the compromise relative to the task force’s
proposal
1)&n=
bsp;
Relating to personnel – no pink
slips during the “transition period” due to downsizing. Terminations “for
cause” would be handled by normal procedures
a)&n=
bsp;
No requirement for old line st=
ate
conventions to send funds to pioneer state conventions [Note: it is uncerta=
in
if the task force’s proposal contemplates this or not]
b)&n=
bsp;
State conventions have the rig=
ht
to keep any personal currently working under a cooperative agreement in the=
ir
state; budget neutral [but not personnel neutral]
a)&n=
bsp;
No person currently working in the geogr=
aphic
area of a pioneer state convention is sent elsewhere during the “transition
period”
b)&n=
bsp;
Budget neutral
Negative points of the compromise relative to the task force’s
proposal
1)&n=
bsp;
Relating =
to
personnel – personnel may be asked to move from a the territory of an old-l=
ine
state convention to a pioneer state convention area if they wish to maintain
their employment with the NAMB
2)&n=
bsp;
Relating =
to
the NAMB – the NAMB does not have the flexibility to move people from one
pioneer state convention are to another pioneer state convention area – at
least until some transition time has expired
3)&n=
bsp;
Relating =
to
old-line state conventions --
a)&n=
bsp;
The old-l=
ine
state convention would have to pick up the NAMB’s portion of a person’s sal=
ary
that was previously covered by a cooperative agreement if the old-line state
convention wanted to retain that person on their staff
b)&n=
bsp;
Reduction=
of
number of staff.
4)&n=
bsp;
Relative =
to
pioneer state conventions –some personnel currently under their control, or
joint control, of the pioneer state conventions would become NAMB employees=
This proposal is a set of talking points to move things forward
relative to the task force’s proposal. I do not represent any party to the
negotiation, including any state convention or the NAMB or the task force. =
Rog= er K. Simpson
Okl=
ahoma
City OK