GRN Structure

CRRA@AOL.COM
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:19:37 -0500


There appears to be several directions GRN could go on structure. Lance King
and I met recently and summarized those options as follows:

1. Operate strictly through cyberspace, without additional resources
needed/solicited. Whatever happens, happens. (advocated by Steve Suess &
Rick Anthony)

2. Have individual GRN members take on specific projects to implement an
agreed upon vision. Funding and financial accountabilities would be through
our individual organizations and not through GRN separately. (Turner grant
proposal was structured that way).

3. Develop specific models of our vision, through a combination of public and
private entrepreneurial activities, then advocate these individually and
collectively (Dan Knapp early recommendation).

4. Take back the NRC - Have GRN be given a designated slot on a dramatically
revised NRC Board that was downsized to 5 to 9 designated slots (1 or 2 for
SROs recommended by SROC, 1 or 2 for GRN, other designated slots like RAC
had). Petition NRC to establish GRN like a NRC Technical Council under their
organizational structure, but given broader latitude to develop and advocate
policies and programs different from the NRC as a whole (like the latitude
CRRA provideds its Technical Councils very successfully). This eliminates
the need to set up a new organization and builds on the current opportunity
of dramatic changes being required at the NRC to respond to their fiscal
crisis. (Gary Liss suggestion). GRN could solicit grassroots members for
NRC-GRN activities, ensuring that community-based grassroots individuals
become the mainstay of NRC politics and, therefore, direction.

5. Build a new organization that is a bridge to the tens of millions of those
currently recycling. ( Lance King suggestion with support from Bill Sheehan).

My recommendation is to organize by approaches 1 & 2 above for this year,
while we explore the interest of our network actually committing to any of
the other directions.

What do you think?

Gary Liss