At 11:53 PM 9/21/03 EDT, M K Harrison wrote:
In a message dated 9/21/03 10:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
thammack(a)datasync.com writes:
> This is ridiculous. It is open ended and will result in major disruptions
> from those to be removed asking for delay after delay and then griping if
> action is taken. We would be better off with no reference to this.
Rather than just dismiss the whole idea, why not suggest alternative wording?
Given the cloak & dagger, under the sheets treatment past CCs have
suffered -
it is more than obvious that this does need to be dealt with. On the
table
and fairly.
I suggest there be a website up (via password given to CCs) where County
sites in question are posted with the date of the SC's initial contact.
That way
there is no question about what period of time was given a CC to
correct
her/his website.
Are you speaking nationally or state sites?
If you are speaking as to the state site:
I'm not sure exactly who you are saying would have access to this site.
Hosting
of a site, problems that may exist are not the business of the public but
the business
of the SC/ASC/RC and the coordinator, co-coordinators in question.
While it may be of concern that all folks are treated equally, if items are
documented,
the Guidelines are followed and/or the Council is informed - then if those
items
were requested as proof later on - they would be available.
And perhaps it would be helpful if the reasons(s) the web page is on
notice
be posted too. There have been times in the recent past when the CC was not
told why her pages were not in compliance. This should not happen again.
Also, "ample time" is in the eye of the beholder. If the CC has not posted
she/he is on holiday, x number or days/weeks need to be set. That number
can
be extended; however, they cannot be shortened. Obviously if a CC is
on
holiday, that time period must be taken into consideration and worked into
the
notice.
That's a given.
Tim