Positives on PWNA BMPs?

Allison Hester

Allison Hester

New member
I am working on an article on the new PWNA BMPs and want to try to give both sides of the story -- those for and those against. I've seen lots of against comments on the board but wonder if anyone sees the BMPs as a positive. I don't necessarily want to start a new argument here. Just if you are for them and willing to be quoted on that, or at least be interviewed (I can not include your name but use the info), please let me know ASAP.

Thank you!
 
The BMP was written with the Vendor in mind, not the contractor. The less press it gets the better, in my opinion. Anyone contractor that wants to read it can find it easily enough. The more we can keep municipalities from reading it or knowing about it the better. It was put together by an Org that does not represent 99% of the contractors but is pushing for full implementation of this. At least when they don't have board members resigning for getting caught doing shafy stuff:)
 
The biggest positive that I can see is that it has the most informed contractors talking about the CWA and forming an opinion on it. Can you imagine if they were able to do this behind closed doors? Then it would truly be a boondoggle. At least now wall the contractors are aware and should know they should he working in.a particular direction.
For the first time ever, I was in a pre award meeting today, and one of the discussion points was the BMP's of the city. The people I was talking with were amazed that I knew what they were, and ciuld discuss them in an intelligent manner. What I found interesting is that they have been issuing fines to companies that have been in compliance with the cities requirements, because the inspector wants to over enforce. Of course, it is likely because the tech had an attitude that did not help his case.
 
offdutyfireman said:
The less internet attention the BMP's get the better. The PWNA is working hard to shut down individual contractors and they do not need any more help.
Click to expand...

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Until there are BMP's written with the contractor in mind - as well as the REAL purpose for putting them in place.....the current BMP's should be buried.
 
Scott Stone said:
The biggest positive that I can see is that it has the most informed contractors talking about the CWA and forming an opinion on it. Can you imagine if they were able to do this behind closed doors? Then it would truly be a boondoggle. At least now wall the contractors are aware and should know they should he working in.a particular direction.
For the first time ever, I was in a pre award meeting today, and one of the discussion points was the BMP's of the city. The people I was talking with were amazed that I knew what they were, and ciuld discuss them in an intelligent manner. What I found interesting is that they have been issuing fines to companies that have been in compliance with the cities requirements, because the inspector wants to over enforce. Of course, it is likely because the tech had an attitude that did not help his case.
Click to expand...

+100 ----- being in law enforcement unless a crimes such as a misdimeanor or a Felony has been committed most of the times the officer is allowed to use the magical word--discretion. Especially when it comes to a violation. When you put camara's up to watch lets say cars driving thru a red light because they actually were sliding on a patch of black ice etc..... there is no discretion. There found guilty because the camara says so. In what Scott said about attitude thats right up there for the discretion word to be broken down to the point the officer now becomes a robot and he just writes the ticket to this person. Attitude and above all Knowledge is key in not being ticketed. This is why I don't fault the PWNA with there BMP's because at least there trying to educate the Powers to be that can enforce the laws. To turn a blind eye to what going on and believe me most people will thats where the problem is and because of that Code enforcement knows this.....its now an easy revenue stream to make the all mighty dollar in the area's where the recession or call it a depression is starting to hit.

Knowledge is key and if you disagree with whats being done.....then get off your fat azzes and do something about it because if not...we lose...and we pay and pay and pay...... then where gone maybe even after where forced to pay the first time because some of these fines can be in the thousands.
 
Doug Rucker said:
The only positive I can see, is it may contribute to helping the PWNA close it's doors for good.
Click to expand...
Dont count on it. Just about 20 yrs now this org. has been operating. Its not going anywhere.
 
I agree with the less press that the P*** gets about this the better.

If you write an article that is able to be searched by the google/yahoo/bing bots then you are helping the P*** ruin contractors, helping them promote their B.S. bmp's, helping put contractors out of business thus you are kind of like acting like you are anti-contractor which you are supposed to be pro-contractor.

Why talk about or help the P*** promote their B.S. bmp's and help put contractors out of business?

I am sure that this is a hot topic right now and lots would like to read about this but there are a lot of other things to write about that would get your magazine read instead of helping hurt the contractors that you want to read your magazine.
 
Christopher said:
I agree with the less press that the P*** gets about this the better.

If you write an article that is able to be searched by the google/yahoo/bing bots then you are helping the P*** ruin contractors, helping them promote their B.S. bmp's, helping put contractors out of business thus you are kind of like acting like you are anti-contractor which you are supposed to be pro-contractor.

Why talk about or help the P*** promote their B.S. bmp's and help put contractors out of business?

I am sure that this is a hot topic right now and lots would like to read about this but there are a lot of other things to write about that would get your magazine read instead of helping hurt the contractors that you want to read your magazine.
Click to expand...

Maybe you guys already knew this. First, the original BMPs written by Robert and approved by PWNA have been on the EPA WEBSITE for YEARS. If the local authorities want to find them, they are on the EPA WEBSITE! Why would they go to our subscriber-only magazine where they will have to pay to read the article when they are right there on the EPA website?

Same thing for the first PWNA website. Been there for years. Just apparently no one realized it.

Second, if you Google "PWNA BMPs," guess what shows up first? Yep. THIS site...and all the comments/attention that participants don't mind drawing to it here.

I'm kind of at a loss as to why reporting to contractors about why some feel this is an issue, why some contractors are upset, why helping contractors know that BMPs are REQUIRED to be in their communities, and why they may want to work with their local authorities to create them before the authorities do it themselves is hurting contractors. Especially when the article is going to be available to subscribers only. Which is hurting contractors more? Bringing to light the reality -- warts and all -- or just letting them get blindsided by another Houston?
 
offdutyfireman said:
Allison, it is your publication so you can put in whatever you like. You asked our opinion. I would suggest writing about how Robert sold out the industry, how the P*** has hurt the industry, or even better, not mention the P*** and hope it goes away like the UAMCC did.
Click to expand...

I did ask for your feedback and I do appreciate it. Thank you!
 
Allison, I think the concern is that a larger web presence may cause more contractors to join who don't know any better and won't bother to read the details. Robert's BMP's have been on the EPA site (along with pictures of a bunch of vacuum stuff, if I remember correctly) for a long time.

The difference is no one was looking before. And now they will be.

I'm sure Robert thought and still thinks he was doing the best thing for the industry. But the best thing for our industry would have been to start years ago touting us as the most environmentally safe way to clean surface contaminants with the least use of water - mentioning that we divert water when it's feasable or we filter water at the drains (which is a lot more than Mother Nature does!) AND we would have had to make it THEIR idea.

The EPA could have been our partner in this by pointing out the need for FAR more frequent cleanings to avoid environmental contamination, but instead, the route taken has turned us into "criminals" and "violators" insomuch as they give out a framed "scarlet Letter" to graduates of their programs in Houston!

It was an opportunity missed. And for the 20 year old PWN* to continue with virtually the same failed approach is a testament to the reason they only had 100 or so members after all those years and needed the artificial membership bump they requested from Ron, received, then proceeded to use the little money they made from it to discredit Ron.

So again, the concern is creating more web presence.

Sounds to me like you are simply reporting though. True reporting is a lot more than the disguised ads the you see like the "spotlight on contractors" section in the newspaper. In my opinion, as long as the issues are addressed, I think what you are proposing sounds good. That's just my opinion.
 
Tony Shelton said:
Allison, I think the concern is that a larger web presence may cause more contractors to join who don't know any better and won't bother to read the details. Robert's BMP's have been on the EPA site (along with pictures of a bunch of vacuum stuff, if I remember correctly) for a long time.

The difference is no one was looking before. And now they will be.

I'm sure Robert thought and still thinks he was doing the best thing for the industry. But the best thing for our industry would have been to start years ago touting us as the most environmentally safe way to clean surface contaminants with the least use of water - mentioning that we divert water when it's feasable or we filter water at the drains (which is a lot more than Mother Nature does!) AND we would have had to make it THEIR idea.

The EPA could have been our partner in this by pointing out the need for FAR more frequent cleanings to avoid environmental contamination, but instead, the route taken has turned us into "criminals" and "violators" insomuch as they give out a framed "scarlet Letter" to graduates of their programs in Houston!

It was an opportunity missed. And for the 20 year old PWN* to continue with virtually the same failed approach is a testament to the reason they only had 100 or so members after all those years and needed the artificial membership bump they requested from Ron, received, then proceeded to use the little money they made from it to discredit Ron.

So again, the concern is creating more web presence.

Sounds to me like you are simply reporting though. True reporting is a lot more than the disguised ads the you see like the "spotlight on contractors" section in the newspaper. In my opinion, as long as the issues are addressed, I think what you are proposing sounds good. That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Tony, thank you for shedding light on the concerns. That helped clarify some things.
 
Instead of using the P*** name, why not write about what the Clean Water Act really says so others will know if they are new to the industry, so that municipalities will know if they are approached by emails, mail or people trying to use scare tactics to get them to slowly turn into another "Houston"?

Showing what the Clean Water Act really says will help educate contractors, municipalities and might possibly bring more readers to your magazine if you are helping to show them what the Clean Water Act really is saying (not manipulated or blatently lied about like others have done) and then you are really helping a lot of contractors out there that either don't have a clue, are new or have been mis-informed or lied to.
 
And that is how the discussion of what needs to be done, or said, gets started. We really do need to address the clean water act, and the ramifications of abiding by it. It is very easily, and commonly misunderstood, and sometimes intentionally misinterpreted, because people with an agenda what it interpreted "their" way. Look at the people, such as Mike H. or others that we all know, that intentionally try and get stricter enforcement, because they feel like that jusitfies a higher price, or because they think it makes it more likely for them to get the work. There are quite a few people that have made disinformation on the CWA, their lifes work, and intentionally, demean others when they can't compete.
I think one of the greatest faults, and what is causing the PWN* guys the greatest problem is that the guidelines that they are touting were done under the cover of darkenss, and not out in the open. It makes any efforts that tey put forth appear, at least, a little seedy, and dishonest. Their efforts would have been so much more effective if they had gotten contractor input at the beginning, middle and end of the process, instead of just dropping it and saying, this is what it is, do you like it?
Just my opinion.
BTW, Allison, you are free to call me if you want to ask more in depth questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top