**Executive Secretary's Address**

**National Conference on Weights and Measures**

**Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania**

**July 15, 2004**

**"Changes and Opportunities"**

**Henry Oppermann**

**National Institute of Standards and Technology**

The NIST Weights and Measures Division recently sponsored Weights and
Measures Administrators' Workshops, and I was extremely happy with the
discussions and the many ideas that were presented.

One of the key topics of discussion was the future of weights and
measures oversight. The marketplace has changed. We are in a global
manufacturing and marketing environment, and consumers have changed as
reflected by their tastes and priorities. Consumer demographics have
changed, and retailers have changed their marketing techniques in
response to changes in consumers. Consumer product manufacturers have
changed their products, packaging, and marketing approaches, and scale
and meter manufacturers have changed technology and the products they
provide based upon the needs and wishes of their customers. Businesses
must respond and adapt to their changing environment if they are to
survive and prosper, and weights and measures programs must also change
and adapt if we are to survive and prosper.

Weights and measures is one of the most fundamental and important
components of the commercial measurement system. Many weights and
measures programs have not done well on budget issues over the last 15
years. While some programs have done well and others expect a
significant economic recovery, we have to learn from each other and
improve our operations. We have to see how we can become more efficient
and effective. The speakers and discussions at the Administrators'
Workshops provided a variety of ideas and experiences on which we need
to capitalize.

There were discussions regarding "risk-based inspections," that is,
inspections focused on devices or businesses with higher levels of
noncompliance, rather than performing inspections on 100 % of all
devices. Statistical sampling may also be a component of risk-based
inspections, rather than testing all of the devices. Several
jurisdictions reported that they were forced into this course of action.
A few programs have found ways to make this approach successful.
However, the implementation of these types of programs must be done in
the proper way and as part of the "bigger picture." Risk-based
inspections in the narrow view are often an excuse to cut staffing.
However, effective regulatory oversight of the marketplace can result
from properly implementing a comprehensive combination of service
company work, monitoring the performance of service companies, record
keeping and analysis, conducting an adequate number of regulatory
inspections, and the judicious use of penalties. Risk-based inspections
can allow weights and measures programs to shift resources in order to
expand regulatory oversight. However, improper implementation of
risk-based inspections can weaken weights and measures regulatory
oversight. We have to be proactive to change with our political and
economic environment so we can be the major force in shaping our future.

A problem raised by the NIST focus groups is the lack of consistency in
weights and measures interpretations, inspections, practices, and
regulations. We have the opportunity to improve this situation both for
the benefit of the regulatory community and for industry and the
retailers. The effort of the Professional Development Committee and the
idea of establishing a certification program for weights and measures
inspectors present a great opportunity to improve uniformity across the
country. Improving uniformity requires the [commitment]{.underline} on
the part of all in the regulatory community to make it happen. However,
this is something that is under our control, and, therefore, it is
something that we can achieve.

The marketplace is global. Business acquisitions, mergers, and
bankruptcies have resulted in huge multi-national companies that market
around the world. Weights and measures must look at how the marketplace
has changed and explore how our approach to regulatory oversight should
change to be more effective. One key opportunity that exists is for
weights and measures officials to cooperate nationally rather than
operate as independent and uncoordinated actions. The NCWM Board has had
discussions this week that present opportunities for some coordinated
national efforts through the conduct of national marketplace audits.
This is an exciting possibility that may revitalize some of the most
effective work weights and measures programs have done on a national
basis. Opportunities for partnership among NCWM, NIST, and individual
jurisdictions exist and we have to take advantage of them. We can be
much stronger, more successful, and more efficient working together than
by working separately.

NIST has undertaken the weights and measures benchmark study, in which
many weights and measures directors participated. Individual companies
participated in interviews that provided valuable insight into how their
customers, their markets, their priorities, and their companies have
changed in response to the changing markets and competition. The NCWM
assisted NIST in this study by providing the data from their survey,
which are extremely valuable to the benchmark study. Although the data
are not "clean and pretty," I believe the study will provide the basis
to see where opportunities for improvement exist. However, this will
take additional effort. To take advantage of the data that have been
collected, we jointly have to look deeper into what is behind the data.
One obvious difficulty in the collection and analysis of the data is
that weights and measures jurisdictions are not consistent in how they
categorize devices, package inspections, and price verifications, or in
how they track violations. This may be an opportunity for the NCWM to
develop a recommendation for defining device categories and the means
for tracking violations so we can better compare results across the
country.

To take advantage of the data collected for the benchmark study, WMD
believes that small groups of experts should be assigned to each major
weights and measures inspection discipline to analyze the inspections,
the records, and the practices that are behind the numbers. We need to
validate the data and then identify which programs have "best practices"
that should be emulated by others. Overall, this follow-up work presents
opportunities. We want to use the benchmark study and the subsequent
follow-up work to develop "model" weights and measures programs so
jurisdictions can compare themselves.

NIST also hopes to use the results of the Administrators' Workshops, the
discussions of the focus groups held in 2003, and the follow-up work on
the benchmark study to update NIST Handbook 82, "Weights and Measures
Administration." We also want to develop a training course for new
weights and measures directors to explain the responsibilities and
complexities of managing weights and measures programs. We need to
explain the ramifications of relying on fees to fund regulatory
activities.

These are projects that we in weights and measures have talked about for
years. I believe that we are in position to move forward on these
projects to strengthen weights and measures programs and the operation
of the commercial measurement system. In order to achieve this goal, we
must work together. NIST looks forward to working with you on these
projects. Thank you for your attention.

**Chairman's Address**

**National Conference on Weights and Measures**

**Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania**

**July 15, 2004**

**Dennis E. Ehrhart**

**Arizona Department of Weights and Measures**

Good Afternoon, I am indeed honored to have the opportunity to serve the
National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Recognition Through Transparency was my slogan for my term.
Transparency, above board, open, crystal clear, all the same. I wanted
this body to be painfully aware of how important to due process
transparency actually is. I hope you found the Board more transparent.
The newsletters were full of the actions of the Board and NTEP. Our
Board open hearings were longer and I hope not to the chagrin of the
members. I hope our stakeholders found the NCWM more transparent. We
asked more questions. We received more answers.

I hope you are not burned out on surveys because we need more. We do not
as of yet have the information necessary to begin a National Media
Campaign or identify a Model Weights and Measures Program.

I had the privilege to attend the International Society of Weighing and
Measurement (ISWM) meeting in Covington, Kentucky last month. The
meeting featured a keynote speaker by the name of Robert Stevenson the
author of the book "How to Soar With Eagles While Working With Turkeys".
I'd like to share just a few of the points he made because even though
he was speaking to a private sector group, I found some appropriate for
the public sector: 1.  You can't make your organization better until you
make your people better. 2.  Create a FUBAR list. (Fouled up beyond all
recognition) You need to make a list of all the things you do or try to
do that don't work so when you hire someone new you can share that list
and tell them we've tried these things they don't work, don't do them.
3.  Success is never final. 4.  Change is not a way of life; it is life.
5.  It's not the big that eat the small; it's the fast that eat the
slow. And, 6. Share the details.

Case in point. Boeing Aircraft made a cannon to fire processed chickens,
NOT NECESSARILY ENHANCED, at the windshield of proto-type airplanes to
ensure the windshield would not break if the plane hit a bird during
takeoff or while in flight. The maker of a Bullet Train in France heard
of the cannon and thought it would be a worthwhile venture to borrow the
cannon and test the windshields of their trains. Boeing sent the cannon
to France with a lengthy list of set up and operating instructions. The
engineers that designed the train set up the cannon per the instructions
and fired a chicken at the windshield. Not only did the chicken go
through the windshield but also through the control panel, broke the
engineers seat and imbedded into the rear wall of the engine.

The engineers were stunned. They carefully recorded all of their
preliminary steps and the results and fired them off to Boeing. Why has
our experiment gone so horribly wrong? The answer was one short
sentence. Thaw the Chicken.

My focus at the ISWM conference was to reach out to another set of
stakeholders. I believe we need to spend much more time identifying and
contacting our stakeholders for more than one reason. First; we may find
a source of membership, second; we may find a source of expertise to
assist our standards writing efforts and finally, we may end up finding
parties that are affected by our work.

President, Steve Kendra of the ISWM and I have started talks about joint
activities in Orlando next year while we are staying at the same
facility. I think this is an excellent opportunity to interact with an
association with common interests and goals.

So, what are some of the areas that require the attention of the NCWM?

The NCWM while being active in the international arena needs to begin
playing a bigger role in the OIML process and the National Working
Groups.

I remember a time, not too long ago, when I was one that said this is
the ***National*** Conference on Weights and Measures why must we
concern ourselves with international standards? Spend some time with the
associate members, and members of ISWM, and members of the SMA. They
will tell you they want one stop shopping for type evaluation and one
set of standards to adhere to so they do not have to make different
devices or packages for different worldwide markets.

Exploring the possibilities of participating in the MAA with OIML
countries for type evaluation data exchange and acceptance is under way
and moving at a rapid pace.

In that 50 % or more of the membership of the NCWM is comprised of
associate members, we owe our industry partners our support and
dedication toward helping them to be a competitive force in the global
marketplace. We can ensure this positioning by working toward
harmonization with OIML standards and type evaluation. And, please don't
construe that statement as a position of support for OIML criteria
instead of or in place of NCWM standards and type evaluation checklists.
The process of harmonization is not an abandonment of our standards but
a process of having applicable standards incorporated into one-another's
standards. Perhaps we must examine our "Yankee Pride" and not allow that
to stand in the way of progress and artificially create technical or
administrative barriers to trade.

The creation of a national training program for field personnel in order
to ensure uniformity of field examinations as well as enforcement
actions of weighing and measuring disciplines is still a priority at the
Board level and I'm certain each of you feel the same sense of urgency
to improve the training material available to regulators and industry
alike.

Our partners at WMD brought a series of issues regarding the development
of standards to the Board's attention. One of those issues was the
concern that in order to write the best standards possible the proper
experts must be involved. Why employ working groups? Each of the
standing committees, while having dedicated hard working members, they
are most likely not equipped to deal with some of the more technical
issues put before them. I can see the need for a working group or groups
to assist the PDC in their task to create the curriculum for the
training program.

Wes Diggs and I visited all three standing committees and asked them to
give us a 40 thousand foot view of how working groups would be utilized.
How working groups would move a project through the system? Who might be
on those groups? Would there be funding needed and how much?

The technological advances of the marketplace dictates to industry the
time frame in which they must bring their products to market has placed
a greater importance to the time a device can spend in the evaluation
process and a manufacturer still be able to remain competitive. The NTEP
staff and laboratories must remain sensitive to those needs and strive
to be as efficient as possible to enable a manufacturer to receive a CoC
in a reasonable time.

Internal issues of the Conference such as ensuring the Conference is
financially stable must remain a high priority. One way to accomplish
this goal is by pursuing the identification of non-dues revenue and
enhancing membership levels. Bob McGrath's membership initiative should
be memorialized along with his idea of dedicating a portion of each
Board meeting to discussing membership issues and, not just pursuing new
members but the retention of present members. We must find new member
benefits and enhance the benefits already in place.

The Fair Measurement Act proposed by Aves Thompson in which legislation
would be proposed at the Federal level to garner federal monies to
assist Weights and Measures jurisdictions must be a continuing effort by
the Conference. Each of us should make every effort to contact your
Congressional Representative to keep the issue on their radar screen.
Because at the end of the day the bills that can be considered a good
piece of bi-partisan legislation that are being pushed from several
directions can prevail.

There will be new parts of the NCWM strategic plan that should move to
the forefront and be recognized. In order to really become transparent
and to receive the recognition we deserve. We must find a way to meet
the criteria set out in the National Media Campaign Plan and implement
the campaign. I believe the media campaign is worthy of the allocation
of resources to heighten public awareness of the Weights and Measures
community and perhaps more specifically the NCWM.

Most of you are aware the State of Arizona has a very active media
campaign and a very dynamic Public Information Officer. I hope to be
able to infuse some of DeeAnn's ability and time to make a recognition
program library. While some of the news media pieces are Arizona
specific, most are of generic consumer oriented genera.

The real beauty of the media spots is while the consumer is being
educated one or more members of the retail community are being
highlighted as a good corporate citizen. One or more device
manufacturers are receiving acknowledgment as a company that produces a
product that a businessperson can rely upon in a commercial application.

Ensuring the existence of a strong Weights and Measures program is not
only good for the consuming public but also for the retail and
manufacturing community. Our industry partners have been and we hope
will continue to be our greatest supporters. But an informed consuming
public is necessary to be our eyes and ears in the marketplace.

In Arizona, 4 years into an active media program our consumer complaints
have become more productive in finding violations than the efforts of
our random inspection program. For instance, while Department finds a
41 % rejection rate for Price Verification, the rejection rate for
complaints regarding Price Verification is almost 90 %. The consumers
have been exposed to the requirements and take that knowledge into the
marketplace with them.

The Department receives 700 to 800 gasoline volume complaints in the
course of an average year. After several gasoline media spots, the
percentage of valid complaints rose from 1 % to 9 % with a reduction of
the old stand by "my car won't hold that much gas".

In closing: There is still much to do. There are still tight budgets and
a shrinking volunteer force. But, we've seen budgets rebound. We will
find new members and absent members will return. Weights and Measures
programs are necessary to a stable and prosperous American marketplace.

I believe in the NCWM.

Thank you very much and May God Bless America.

NCWM 2004 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients

  --------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------
  **Name**                                               **Number of
                                                         Years**

  Karl Angell                                            10

  Mark Buccelli                                          10

  Jerry Flanders                                         10

  Darrell E. Floken                                      10

  Gary Lameris                                           10

  Stephen Langford                                       10

  Anthony Lori                                           10

  James A. Vanderwielen                                  10

  Juana Williams                                         10

  Christopher Guay                                       15

  Mark. P. Coyne                                         15

  Ronald G. Hayes                                        15

  Ross J. Andersen                                       25

  Daryl Tonini                                           30

  Joseph Silvestro                                       35
  --------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------