[env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions

[Joshua Allen]

We can agree to disagree. Though as someone studying public administration,
any organization that is admin heavy needs to be critically evaluated.
Especially if it over 15%. Taxpayer funds are being used and if used
incorrectly its just a waste of money paying salaries instead of getting
mission goals completed. A long time complaint of the program is that its a
bunch of egg-head scientists who would rather implement studies and write
expensive environmental documents instead of doing actual on the ground
work. Especially when its a program that continues doing the same thing
expecting different results.

Josh

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:39 PM, lou jacobson <acaswr at yahoo.com> wrote:

> All that information should be public. Perhaps someone should put a
> request in with TRRP?
>
> I have to disagree with Josh that an admin to total budget/implementation
> is a clear indication of how properly funds are being spent. I won't argue
> that it's not an important factor. I'll even agree that in some cases it
> can be used as a tool to identify top heavy program design. I think the
> admin to budget/implementation comparisons are important but they are only
> one factor of many that should be used to judge a program. I'd like to
> see their scope of work, project milestones, budget, etc..., and then see
> how they're performing based on the current admin load. I don't know, they
> could be pissing money down the admin stream but I don't think project
> success/failure is that black and white. Some programs are inherently admin
> heavy.
>
> Lou Jacobson
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Joshua Allen <trinityjosh at gmail.com>
> *To:* Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net>;
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 3, 2011 12:49 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [env-trinity] Trinity River Budget Questions
>
> It would also be nice to know exactly how much is being spent on
> administrative overhead versus on the ground expenses. How much an
> organization spends to accomplish its mission is a clear indication of how
> properly funds are being spent. Just my two cents...
>
> Joshua Allen
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I have had several inquiries about the $36 million figure cited in the
> Redding Record Searchlight for expenditures to restore the Trinity River's
> fish.  I did not make that statement and I have to assume that the $36
> million is just what has been spent on the mainstem "restoration" projects,
> some of which have clearly failed (filled in side channels), but the
> article was not clear on that.  I'm certain that it's not total
> expenditures because budgets have been $14-$15 million/year lately, so $36
> million would be less than 3 years' budgets at current levels.  I know that
> the "old" Trinity River Restoration Program alone spent something like $70
> million.
>
> My guess is that total expenditures under the Trinity River Restoration
> Program, old and new, exceed $200 million.
>
> If somebody knows the real numbers, it would be greatly appreciated.  It
> would be nice to set the record straight so that people know the magnitude
> of taxpayer money spent on this important program.
>
> Tom Stokely
> Water Policy Analyst/Media Contact
> California Water Impact Network
> V/FAX 530-926-9727
> Cell 530-524-0315
> tstokely at att.net
> http://www.c-win.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20111203/6d7ff46a/attachment.html>