[wiaattorneys] FW: WRIS

  • From: "Bervid, Joseph [IWD]" <Joseph.Bervid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:16:31 -0600

 

________________________________

From: Stalker, Teresa [IWD] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:12 PM
To: Al Smith; Angie Fyfe; Anne Eisenman; B Kaufman; Bervid, Joseph
[IWD]; Brian Hopkins; Brock Timmons; Carol Brassey; Charles Bradley;
Chief Counsel; Coleman Walsh; Cynthia H Norwood; Cynthia Quetsch; Daniel
Hays; Daniel LaRocque; Dennis Zerlan; Dirk Anderson; Don Ballard; Donna
Welch; Doris Duhigg; Elaine Snow; Elizabeth B Peay; Erika Uhl; Frances
Lum; Fred Baird; Fred Gamin; Gail Theriault; Gary Holland; George
Wentworth; Greg Frigo; Gregory Ramel; H W Funderburk Jr; Heidi Lane; J
Gannon; James F. Inman; Jane Pomerantz; Jeff Wells; Jerry Hildebrand;
John Albin; John Garrett; John Herold; John Miley; John Perry; Joseph
Duda; Joseph Mueller; Judi Cicatiello; Judy Johnson; Juli Croy;
Katherine Takasugi; Kevin Kerwin; Kristine Musall; Larry Weaver; Laura
Merrion; Lee B. Nelson; Liz Wyman; Lon Siel; M McLaugh; Margaret
Dawkins; Margie Shahin; Maria Colavito; Michael Milwee; Michael Randall;
Mike Fort; Mike Wilma; Mindy Raymaker; Nan Thomas; Nancy Meeden; Pam
Waite; Patricia Mertens; Patrick Power; Paul Mason; Peter Wright;
Phyllis Edwards; Randall Justice; Ray Therrell; Rebecca Sanders; Renee
Bryant; Robert Ganong; Robert Johnston; Robert Welsh; S Creegan; S
Freihofner; S Harlan; Sandra Hughes; Sante Perrelli; Shannon
George-Larson; Susan Pixton; Tamela Biggs; Thomas Ellis; Thomas Ukinski;
zechmanneilr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: WRIS



Attached are two amendments which we are considering for the WRIS
agreement. We would like your comments, suggestions, affirmance or
rejection.

The next issue concerns how changes to the WRIS system, including
changes in uses of the data, would be accomplished. We are leaning
towards allowing the proposed Board to make changes by majority vote or
by a vote of the majority of participating jurisdictions. The mechanism
in the proposed agreement which allows one black ball "no vote" to veto
changes would appear to be overly restrictive.

Individuals have expressed an interest in a conference call of
interested state people before the Federal conference call. If you think
a conference call for the purpose of discussion and consensus would be a
good idea, then let us know.

We would also like written assurance only the state educational agency
would have excess to the raw data and would provide colleges and
universities aggregate numbers without personally identifying
information.

There is some confusion concerning the ICON system which it included in
the proposed agreement. Previously we had only an outdated IBIQ
Information Exchange Agreement. We eagerly await your thoughts.

Joe Bervid

JPEG image

Other related posts:

  • » [wiaattorneys] FW: WRIS