View non-flash version
44 Maritime Reporter & Engineering News September’s regularly scheduled Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) meeting is cancelled. The U.S. Coast Guard cites failure to have a “signed” charter as the reason. With Committee mem- bers in the dark about MERPAC’s future, key STCW decisions could be made without important stake- holder input. Still to be answered: In MERPAC’s ab- sence — does the Coast Guard have the expertise and/or the best interests of U.S. mariners at the heart of their decision process? First established in 1992 at the request of the Coast Guard Commandant, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) advises the Secre- tary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), via the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to the training, qualification, licensing, certi- fication and fitness of seamen in the merchant ma- rine. The Committee acts in an advisory capacity in accordance with federal guidelines — or at least it did until the Coast Guard announced that the regularly scheduled September 2010 meeting had been can- celled. In an August 6 e-mail message, the U.S. Coast Guard’s Mayte Medina told all 19 MERPAC com- mittee members, “I am writing this email to inform you that the Fall MERPAC meeting scheduled for September 8th and 9th in San Diego has been cancelled due to not having a signed committee charter … We will keep you informed of any future de- velopments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.” In a nutshell, each advisory committee, formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) has a charter that forms the committee and spells out their duties. Re- newed every few years, the charters all go to the Sec- retary of the Department (in the case, DHS) for signature. The same is true with the nominations of commit- tee members. And according to one MERPAC mem- ber, “Right now, the MERPAC charter is waiting for a signature, and the committees cannot meet because the money for the meeting cannot be spent, without a charter in place.” And there, you have it. The only unanswered question is why? Does MERPAC Matter? To be fair, the absence of MERPAC input won’t prevent the U.S. Coast Guard from considering feedback from the general public in advance of their in- ternal STCW deliberations. And de- spite a tight-lipped approach to the process that fairly rivals the MARAD theory of “no information is good in- formation,” they have also signaled their intention to publish a Supplemental NPRM as a next step. The SNPRM would describe any proposed changes from the NPRM, and seek com- ments from the public on those proposed changes. Ar- guably, input from MERPAC would have been better structured, far better informed and of greater value. An excerpt from a blog entry by Joseph Keefe posted on MaritimeProfessional.com on 8/17/2010 BLOGS Posted on MaritimeProfessional.com MERPAC: Aground as STCW Flood Tide Crests USCG: Failure to have a “signed” charter reason for Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee cancellation Follow Joe Keefe’s “Global Maritime Analysis” blog on Maritime Professional.com
