Was a bit surprised the other day to find that some folks may "not get it" on a reference to "1984"! Maybe that's just someone "showing their (lack of) age" or perhaps it's a sign of something a bit more dire...
The novel "1984" was written by George Orwell in 1949 and forecast a future world (to occur around the year 1984) in which "things were never quite what they seemed". The book starts off with the classic opening line: " It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen."
If you have ever encountered the phrases: "Big Brother is watching you"; "newspeak"; "thought crime"; "double think"; "2+2=5"; or "Room 101"; they all came out of Mr. Orwell's book "1984"! In fact, the whole spectre of a world gone mad on rigid government control and arrogant political correctness is often now described as "Orwellian"!
When the "thought police" dictate what you do, how you do it, and even what you should think; you have arrived at "1984"! And, should you have the audacity to ask for an explanation - "to question authority" - then you are taken to "Room 101" where:
"There are three stages in your "reintegration"... There is learning; there is understanding; there is acceptance."
Until recently - the last three months to be precise - it appeared that we had arrived at that "un-appealing" 1984 point at the NCUA.
Here was the Agency's attitude about proposed legislation (H.R. 3461) which would permit banks and credit unions to have a formal, legal right - and defined process - to raise grievances against inappropriate examiners. NCUA Executive Director, brother Dave Marquis, had this to say - not too long ago - about NCUA's concern over potential examiner accountability......
Under Oath Before The House Financial Services Committee (2/01/2012):
"First, H.R. 3461 would greatly raise NCUA's administrative costs. For example, the legislation's requirements to index and produce information supporting a finding would increase the time spent on examinations. The legislation's expansion of the existing definition of a "material supervisory determination" also would make virtually all examiner findings, recommendations, and action plans subject to formal appeal. In response, NCUA examiners would need to document each and every finding with specific references to NCUA rules and regulations."
- David M. Marquis, Exec. Director, NCUA
A formal, fair and transparent appeals process is still an open issue at the NCUA.
[Why not change that ?]
[Why not now?]