NCD980602163_19960105_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Re Joint Working Group Science Advisor, 26 Dec 1995-OCR

-Jotm'than B. Howes ·--
# Secretary of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources ~
DATE: 1 !C =½Lo.~
RESPOND BY:. ___________ _
PLEASE:
REMARKS:
__ Draft a reply for my signature and return to me.
__ Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by
me (mpy to Secretary's Office).
__ Draft a reply for the Governor's signature and
return tome.
__ Reply, noting the letter was referred to you by
~vemor Hunt (mpy to Secretary's Office)
~ For your information.
__ Take appropriate action.
Note and file.
Note and return to me.
Note and see me about this.
__ Your comments and/or remmmendations.
512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh 27604 [phone]
12/25/1995 12:15 9192572504 EELC FERRUCC I □
1,: :J;,.~ ~ We.6
To: The Joint Warren C~ty St.E Le PCB Land ill Working Group
From: Ken Ferruecio )1 ....
Subjeet: Science Advisor
Date: December 26, 1995
PAGE 01
As you know, I abstained from asking (luestions and making comments du_ring
the interviews and abstained from voting as well because of reasons me~t,oned
in my December 5th memo and etat>orated in a December 9th memo, which I
have not yet releaSed to you.
Since I have choaen to offlclally abstain from significant aepecta of
the proceae concerning the aelectlon of the science advlaor. It ••
up to you to decide whether to addrest and attempt to reeolve
what I regard as a problematic altuatloll'I that ralaea question•
about the algnlflcance ( or lack of significance ) of the
committee'• d.clalon concerning the sclenee adviaor.
The situation is this: The negotiation trameworL concern ing the division of labor
between Hirschhorn and Barnes as proposed ":JY Henry Lancaster to Bill Meyer
(December 19th memo) wou 1d seem to override and reverse the significance of
the committee's vote for Hin ~hhorn as science advisor.
Thia negotiation • framework ahould reflect the committee'• vote for
Hlrachhorn. It •hould not even suggest the appearance of an
arbitrary attempt to override and reverse the intention of the vote •-
namely, that Hlrachhom be responalbte for formutatlng a
comprehensive and In-depth approach for reaolvlng the crlala and
reaponalble tor all aspecte of the detoxification proeeae. This
Intention waa quite obvious when one considers that the majority
was prepared to accept Hlrachhorn without Barnes If necessary,
but wa• not prepared tc, accept Barnes without Hlr.chhorn.
Hlrachhorn certainty haa the option to Include or exclude Barnea,
given, of courN, that Hirschhorn knows about the optlonal status of
the teem concept. Given these realltlea, the propoeed negotiation
framework does not reflect the wlll o ' the majority as ex11ressed
through the vote.
HlracNhom muat be Informed In writing by the state of North
Carollna that the committee voted for him as science advla,,r (9 to 6)
and that the ta.am concept Is uncterst.ood to be optional. The
negotiation framework must reflect t 1c wlll of the committee before
the contract negotiation proi)e$8 begh u1.
My Interpretation of the commltt-•• view le that It e•tabllah•d
the legltlmacy of Hlr-achhom'a leadership aa science advteor
through a democratic proceaa. The proposed negotiation framework
12/26/1995 12:16 91921,72604 EELC FERRUCCI □
ta lncompathle with thla Interpretation.
PAGE 02
... ·,
:,_ ...
,, .\,t
i~ ,!
.·; ~ ""' ,,
. .. 1 ,•
,' .(
' -, ~ .. ~
~~;> ' ~ •j;i I.
if,;
it~-.. -~.' . . , ,fl'