At 01:52 PM 12/17/2004 -0500, you wrote:
><the proposals you submit are to be based on the CURRENT EDITION of the
>Standard, as that is what is subject to change. ... the ENTIRE STANDARD
>is still open to comment...>
>
>This is what I find confusing.  I have a copy of the current standard,
>but would like to comment on the proposed changes, in order to support
>continuation of safe and protective storage of records.  If I do not
>know what is proposed, I cannot comment for or against and give reasons
>for my comments.  If I understand the process, I can only propose
>changes or say I like it the way it is.

Sorry if it's a bit confusing, but that's the case.  As I stated earlier,
"Proposed Changes" are just that... they were voted on, and if they
received a majority of votes of the members present they were accepted for
comment, but they are NOT FINAL.  Because of the change in cycle, they will
need to be voted on again, so at this point, the entire document "as was"
in 2000 stands as valid.

ANY NEW comments submitted BEFORE JANUARY 14th must be submitted to ballot
again, so although their may be proposals "on the floor", they are subject
to re-consideration if there are new proposals submitted.

Once the proposals submitted are reviewed and voted on in February by the
Committee, the entire document, with proposed changes annotated in the
text, will be subject to a comments period, where interested parties are
again provided an opportunity to voice opinions related to the proposed
changes PRIOR to them being accepted as final in the next revision of the
Standard.

However, the most important portion of the revision period is the
"Proposal" cycle... once something is accepted and is subject to the final
review, during the "Comments" cycle it takes a second ballot and another
majority to change it.

The final opportunity is at the National Meeting, when the revised
Standard, including all accepted Proposals not reversed or modified during
the Comments phase is subjected to a floor vote and voted on by the entire
NFPA Membership, and is either accepted as written, or rejected and
returned to Committee, which is what happened at the last National NFPA 232
was balloted at.

If you were to contact the NFPA Staff Liaison to Standard 232 (David Hague)
at [log in to unmask], he may be willing to either make a copy of the proposed
changes available to you, or provide a better explanation of why they are
not made available to the public during a revision cycle.

Larry

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance