However if the Director is making those decisions (his job) with all the information; biological assessment from his staff and user input from the appropriate advisory group then I don't consider system broken.

Like many I do have some issues of lack of communication of what was going on (other options being considered) which lead to way too many unnecessary rumors and uncertainty, how the information got out, etc.Curt [/quote]

First, I recognize that the position of Director is in flux at the moment so this is hopefully not representative of how such emergent issues will be handled at least in terms of feedback to the advisory group(s) who apparently were provided an opportunity for input.

My concern is that after having been involved as a citizen and club spokesperson in a minimum of three long term issues (PSRRP, new crab policy and dogging the Point No Point project) I have seen in each process incidents whereby grossly inaccurate information pertinent to the decision making was not only introduced but continued to be promulgated after having been pointed out to the liaison. Those incidents have caused me to have concerns about the integrity of some individuals as well as the process. That is, does the current process allow for what is being discussed and recommended by the individual Advisory Groups to be available to upper management/Commission to ensure they are seeing and hearing the recommendations from the Advisory Groups?