Showing papers on "Delegation published in 1974"

Therapeutic Acupuncture in the People's Republic of China: Implications for American Medicine

Abstract: THE purposes of this report are to review the use of therapeutic acupuncture in the People's Republic of China, to summarize the current status of acupuncture in the United States, and to offer conclusions that hopefully will help the physician place this technique in proper perspective. This report is based on observations made during a three-week visit to the People's Republic of China, communication with other physicians who have visited China, my activities as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Acupuncture of the National Institutes of Health and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and review of the literature. The three-week trip, made as a member of the American delegation, was organized by the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, at the invitation of the Chinese Medical Association. The 16-member delegation was headed by John R. Hogness MD, then president of the Institute of Medicine of

Changing the Rules Changes the Game: Party Reform and the 1972 California Delegation to the Democratic National Convention

Abstract: Rules changes in the Democratic party have substantially altered one of the fundamental institutions of American politics. This article is an effort to assess some of the effects of the new rules on the selection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention on the strategic environment faced by presidential candidates. The article outlines the basic aspects of those rule changes, describes the problems involved in the implementation of the rules, and attempts to evaluate some of the consequences faced by the presidential campaign of Senator George McGovern in the context of the California primary of 1972.

Comment on “Changing the Rules Changes the Game”

Abstract: Since the bright summer and dark fall of 1972, Democrats have been disputing whether the McGovern-Fraser commission's reforms were a triumph for justice and democracy or a recipe for electoral disaster. Party-watching political scientists, however, must surely agree that they provide us a veritable mother lode of research material. The dispute reminds us forcefully that however unimportant party rules and processes may seem to some academics, most of the people who operate in our political system's inner circles believe the stakes of intraparty fights are well worth fighting for and recognize party rules as a major factor in determining their outcomes. The reforms demonstrate that the parties' rules and structures are not fixed forever beyond the power of human volition, and thus teach us that henceforth we must be more sensitive to the possibilities of change and more concerned with its probable consequences. As a former commission member who freely accepts one twenty-eighth of whatever praise or blame our reforms deserve, I have read with fascination Mr. Cavala's account of California's delegate slatemaking rules and practices in 1972. I recall that California concerned us more than any other state: our Guideline C-6 was written and adopted mainly to open up its closed slate-making processes; our Guideline B-6 was an effort to persuade California and a few other states to repeal the winner-take-all provisions of their presidential primary laws; and most of us hailed as a great triumph the new slate-making procedures worked out through long and often painful negotiations between the California party and the national commission's chairmen and staff. As a political scientist who has come to believe that impact studies offer the most promising way our discipline can make a scholarly contribution to the formation and evaluation of public policies, I welcome Cavala's focus on the interpretation, application, and consequences of California's new slatemaking rules. I regret that his data consist so largely of his own undocumented participant-observer's impressions, but perhaps that is the best one can do so soon after the fact. I should add that his observations are quite consistent with those I have seen in newspaper accounts and heard from other participants, including those who worked for candidates other than Cavala's. Accepting his account as essentially accurate, then, what does it tell us about the reforms' impact? Cavala's central conclusion is that the new rules were intended to serve new purposes and that the efforts of the candidate organizations to bend them to the old purposes failed miserably. In 1968 and before, he tells us, the typical presidential candidate organization in California put together its delegate slate for the primary so as to broaden its appeal and thus improve its candidate's chances of winning. After the primary the winning organization sought to increase the party's chances of carrying the state in November by adding prominent party leaders and contributors who had supported losing candidates or no candidate in the primary. The main object of the old closed procedures was thus to maximize what might be called "combat effectiveness," first for the primary and then for the general election. There was no nonsense about "open access": if the slatemakers thought you would help them win, you were in; if not, you were out. Cavala relates how the leaders of the candidate organizations in 1972 (including McGovern's, in which Cavala held a high position) hoped to serve these same purposes under the new rules and even take advantage of them to jettison some deadwood. But the rules routed them. Guideline C-6's requirements for open access resulted in district caucuses dominated (he do.s not say "packed") by people with little or no past service to the party or feelings of obligation to its leaders. Consequently, he reports, they were less likely than the slatemakers of earlier years to pick delegates for the purpose of enhancing their candidate's chances of winning the primary, and even less likely to step aside after the primary to make room for party notables. And the injunction in Guidelines A-1 and A-2 that the state delegation should include women, young people, and members of minority groups "in reasonable relationship to their presence in the population of the state" became a prime criterion at each district caucus as well. Moreover, Cavala reports that most of the people attending the

Convention Reform and Conventional Wisdom: An Empirical Assessment of Democratic Party Reforms

Abstract: For the past six years, the Democratic party has been implementing a number of significant changes in the process of selecting delegates to its national nominating conventions. The party's Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection headed by Senator George McGovern, which grew out of the turbulent 1968 convention, put forward a list of wide-ranging reforms in its 1970 report.' These recommendations, which have stimulated an ongoing controversy within the party, were designed to achieve two goals: to increase participation by groups previously underrepresented in party affairs, and to make the delegate-selection process itself more open. Addressing itself to the group-representation goal, the commission declared that blacks, women, and youth should be represented in each state delegation in "reasonable relationship to their presence" in the population of the state.2 And with

On ‘An Interview with Chinese Anthropologists‘

Abstract: During March and April 1972 members of the Second Friendship Delegation of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars visited the People's Republic of China and met Fei Hsiao-t'ung, Wu Wen-tsao and Lin Yueh-hwa, scholars well known in western sociological and anthropological circles, and who are at present affiliated to the Central National Minorities Institute, Peking. In October 1973 an article by Gene Cooper appeared in Current Anthropology , consisting of a transcript of Fei's remarks to the delegation, a summary of the ensuing discussion, and a translation of the reply written by Fei, Wu and Lin on 11 October 1972 in response to Cooper's sending them a draft copy of the interview report.

Address by the Frelimo Delegation to the Sixth Pan-African Congress

Abstract: Almost ten years ago, on 25 September 1964, under the leadership of FRELIMO, the united Mozambican people launched a general armed insurrection against Portuguese colonialism and imperialism, to win the total and complete independence of Mozambique. Over these years we have been able to transform the liberation war into a people's war, enriching and deepening the contents of the national liberation struggle so as to transform the armed struggle for national liberation into a revolution.

Enviromental protection agency rules for new "indirect sources" emphasize traffic improvements

Abstract: EPA's rules for "Review of Indirect Sources", published in the Federal Register recently, make it mandatory that all proposed facilities that will attract substantial numbers of automobiles and thus indirectly pollute the air, must be reviewed. This article discusses the types of facilities that will come under scrutiny, and the factors, such as location and number of users that will be important. Types of chemical pollutants and delegation of responsibility are also discussed. Other forms of control of indirect sources are included; strict control in the design of new towns, methods of providing smooth traffic flow from congested areas and alternate forms of transit.

The employee development system

Abstract: THE PAPER CONSISTS OF A BRIEF REVIEW OF SOME BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE FINDINGS ON THE MOTIVATION OF EMPLOYEES AND THE DESCIPRION OF A SYSTEM FOR EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM CONSISTS OF THREE BASIC ACTIVITIES: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM, AND EVALUATION. THE FINAL PART OF THE PAPER CONTAINS A REVIEW OF THE USE OF THE SYSTEM IN THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. EACH OF THE THREE BASIC ACTIVITIES IS MADE UP OF STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ACCOMPLISHING THESE ACTIVITIES. DELEGATION IS DIVIDED INTO DEFINING JOB RESPONSIBILITIES, DEFINING WORK OBJECTIVES, AND REVIEWING THE REQUIRED RESOURCES. THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM IS MADE UP OF THE EMPLOYEE PERFORMING THE JOB WHILE THE SUPERVISOR OBSERVES, ASSISTS, COACHES, AND TRAINS HIM. THE EVALUATION PROCESS CONSISTS OF THE EMPLOYEE REPORTING PROGRESS, THE SUPERVISOR CHECKING PROGRESS, AND THE EMPLOYEE AND SUPERVISOR MEASURING PROGRESS AGAINST OBJECTIVES.