24 Feb
2010
24 Feb
'10
6:28 a.m.
Trial lawyers are part of making case law. Legislators make statutory law. Case law is
*usually* very narrowly targeted. Statutory law tends to be where you find the overbroad,
overreaching and uninformed regulation of how we live our lives and do our business.
Stakeholders are... us. I'm part of an advocacy group for a particular area of
interest that has been very effective in our efforts to educate our legislators regarding
our issues. We've been able to get good legislation introduced, heard and passed, and
bad legislation killed. Next week, I am meeting (by invitation) with the head of one of
the state regulatory agencies that impacts my interest area. She wants to know what I
think. I know because she's asked before, and evidently included my input (on behalf
of the stakeholder community) in her decision process.
If you include in the concept of 'lobbyists' citizens who show up, unpaid, and
speak to the issues with data, not just impassioned rhetoric (although we have some of
that, too), then you are not incorrect. But I suspect you are repeating the oft-stated
belief that only paid, high-powered lobbyists are really making a difference. My small,
not-for-profit advocacy group has beat those people at their own game on more than one
occasion. I don't get paid for the time I spend in the state capital, and I pay my
own way when I visit D.C. I'm paid back when stupid things don't happen, and even
more richly when good things DO happen.
In my experience, at least at the state level, they're listening to the people who are
talking: the decisions are made by the people who show up. Yes, sometimes the dragon
wins, but in my experience the dragon loses often enough to well-informed and passionate
citizen stakeholders that I keep going back. -- Ian
________________________________________
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Seefried [ken at seefried.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:18 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Asbestos: (was: RE: Tubes & Computers of Olden Days)
Dad was an executive and principle engineer at a hazardous waste abatement firm. Lots of
asbestos and superfund site cleanups. I got a lot of collateral knowledge.
From: Ian King <IanK at vulcan.com>>The primary metric is the
'friability' of the asbestosPrecisely. Not all asbestos is created equal; much is
completely harmless, some is frighteningly damaging. Friability is a fancy way of saying
how finely do the asbestos fiber shatter under stress. The finer the particles, the more
dangerous.
I agree that a simple knee-jerk reaction to asbestos
is
silly - but that's how legislators most often write laws.
Well...not exactly (IMO). The legislation followed the trial lawyers making
"asbestos" the equivalent of "plutonium" or "cyanide" in the
minds of the public and therefore the jury pool. It's really tough to convince a jury
that this asbestos is potentially lethal, but that form is harmless, especially when
platiff is coughing his lungs up in the corner.
P.S. - I am *not* saying there wasn't a cavalier attitude toward the stuff, and a lot
of people were hurt without cause.
(Unless stakeholders are there to help them understand
the facts.)If you're refering to the legislators, the the stockholders are lobbyists,
and you don't always get the desired outcome.
KJ