DOJ Requesting More Staffing For CCW Applications

[davegran]

You can't tell the players without a program....

Its about time the DOJ gave a public explaination of how they are processing apps. Do they sequentially number apps as they are opened and use that number as a control number? Do they even open the mail by date received? Do they identify where a bottle neck is occurring and devote resources to that area? Do they identify processors not performing to a defined standard. Is there a management report accounting for all apps received on a given day? So far it appears to be amateur hour as far as their processing system is concerned.

I wonder who is actually in charge of processing? He/she may have reached his/her level of incompetence (The Peter Principle) ....

According to the DOJ organization chart, State Programs - Administration and Revenue Unit is probably doing the actual processing. That unit is under the Division of Legal Services. They work for the Executive Assistant who reports to the Deputy Attorney General who reports to the Attorney General. All kinds of opportunities for poor management....

 

[Da Po-lock]

I snared this from the link safcracker posted

"I mailed mine early 11/1/11 and the check still had not been cashed. Friday I received my denial letter, "the application address does not match the drivers license". I've lived in the same place 34 years. After looking at the application I discovered that I spelled out the word
"Drive" instead of abbreviating it "Dr" as it is on the drivers license."

Reading this makes me angry, very angry! Someones application got declined because they did not use an abbreviation! WTF do they have processing these application? Did the DOJ assign processing tasks to the special olympics teams??

Analogy TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR ! ! ! ! ! !

...........Pissed Po-lock

 

[Nutczak]

Pfffffttt.

Analogy TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR ! ! ! ! ! !

...........Pissed Po-lock

And I would be curious to hear your "politically correct" terminology for the mentally deficient individual who is responsible for rejecting an application because the person spelled out "STREET" instead of using the abbreviation "St."

 

[HandyHamlet]

Easy. Attorney General?

 

[apjonas]

As you (safcrkr) state

I'm assuming by "you" it was a generic term used in a broad sense and did not mean me personally...

That is correct.

 

[apjonas]

No Need to be Silly

It is not a question of whether or not people make mistakes. We all do. It is question of whether or not we should be responsible for the consequences of our mistakes. In the case of the supermarket or traffic light, the inconvenience is measured, at most, in terms of minutes, there is really no monetary loss to the offended party and there is no practical way to sanction the offender to deter future such behavior on his part (or others). The point was that most people get riled at even very small interferences with their time. A $25 fee for an incomplete application would serve to encourage verification that applications are complete and pay (at least in part) for the added cost of returning and reprocessing applications.

Wow man.

I was going to type your exact examples out last night and suggest we fine 'em all a $25 "inconvenience tax".

Only I would have been sarcastic.

:lol:




I stand corrected. And I am honored to meet the only member of the human race who has never committed a mistake. Never inconvenienced his fellow man. And never will.

 

[HandyHamlet]

A $25 fee for an incomplete application would serve to encourage verification that applications are complete and pay (at least in part) for the added cost of returning and reprocessing applications.

only

in terms of minutes, there is really no monetary loss to the offended party and there is no practical way to sanction the offender to deter future such behavior on his part (or others).

I'm fining you $25 for arguing against your own point.





I'm also fining Mr. Nutczak $25 for suggesting a person with disabilities reduces them to the same lowly standards as a government employee.

 

[safcrkr]

That is correct.

Thanks... I thought so. Just not your style to do otherwise.