| Previous slide | Next slide | Back to the first slide | View Graphic Version |
-- THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS WHAT REALLY CONSTITUTES THE 1 POT CONCEPT
-- ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT SAYS THAT OPERATIONAL DOLLARS (PART I) CONSTITUTES THE FAMILIES’ INTERNAL REPROGRAMMING AUTHORITY. THIS SCHOOL SAYS THAT HIGH VIS PGM DOLLARS (PART II) SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS PART III (OPENS/CMAS) IN THAT THE PBC/ARB ADDRESSES ALL FUNDING LEVELS, SHORTFALLS, AND EXCESS.
-- THE OTHER SCHOOL OF THOUGHT SAYS THAT PARTS I&II SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE ONE POT CONCEPT TO MAXIMIZE EMPOWERMENT AND FLEXIBILITY. THIS MANAGER WOULD SAY THAT THIS ONE POT PROVIDES “REAL” EMPOWERMENT TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS IN HIGH VIS AND/OR OPERATIONS AND PROVIDE A SOURCE TO FUND UNPROGRAMMED, UNFORECAST MISSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
-- UNDER EITHER SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, A MAJOR POINT IS THAT ONCE OA22 DISTRIBUTES FAMILY POTS, TO INCLUDE PAYROLL, OA22 WILL HAVE NO FLEXIBILITY TO REPROGRAM OR SUPPORT UNPROGRAMMED REQUIREMENTS. UNDER THE FM APPROACH, EACH AND EVERY UNPROGRAMMED REQUIREMENT, TIME SENSITIVE OR NOT, WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PBC/ARB PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING.