On 23 November 2014 at 22:30, pajz <pajzmail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ
<faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Having carefully read through some of the FDC
rationales I thought
they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need
to change in order to bid more successfully.
I am not entirely sure about this. My concern is essentially that it is
unclear to me how the FDC determines the extent of the cuts it makes and
which item(s) of the budget get(s) cut by what amount of money. For
instance, when to Committee suggests to reduce the allocation to WMDE by
EUR 360,000 vis-à-vis what they requested (-30%), it is not clear to me how
the Committee arrived at that amount of money.
Just noting here that I think this is an excellent point. It's not
entirely clear in some cases why the allocation has been cut by a specific
amount. I can appreciate that the FDC has good reasons for not giving an
entity what it has asked for, but at the same time it should be able to
explain clearly how they arrived at the reduced figure.
The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the
rationale is not clear, is that entities may start to inflate their
requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the
FDC, thus leaving them with the figure that they *really *want. If the
rationale is clearly explained, this will probably be less of a factor.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin