They Should All Take A Sick Day

At this morning's citizen access time, there was an appearance by Shireene Hale, former head planner in charge of our CAOs, and David Dehlendorf, current head of the San Juan County Democratic Party and persistent supporter of Shireene Hale. You can watch their appearances on video at this link.

Now, before we talk about the Hale/Dehlendorf appearances of today, let's walk down memory lane for a moment. When heading up the CAO effort, Hale frequently claimed that the public intimidated her. She referred to some of our CAO public participation meetings as "awful". She even asked sheriff's deputies to show up at public meetings. When a former Planning Commissioner jokingly suggested that she might want to take a "sick day" as a means of avoiding one potentially contentious meeting, Hale accused him of (wait for it) ... intimidation. She also accused a former County Commissioner of intimidation, because of comments he made during a CAO meeting.

The County didn't abandon the "intimidation" angle after Hale left. It was adopted by Gibboney and Mike Thomas in their recent efforts to dump former Building Head John Geniuch. When contractors and other islanders supported Geniuch, the County claimed an angry mob was being organized (yes, Gibboney really did use the words "angry mob" in an administrative law hearing ... but the judge was not persuaded). Gibboney and Thomas took the "intimidation" melodrama so far as to send out an email instructing employees to call the sheriff if John Geniuch was seen on County property.

Okay ... now for the events of today. Hale shows up at citizen access time this morning and says that Pamela Morais (our local County Catbert) and Mike Thomas intimidated her prior to yesterday's public access time. Hale said they pressured her into withholding comments about Portland Fair. Dehlendorf then followed Hale's comments by calling for Mike Thomas to be reprimanded ... even resign, for intimidating a private citizen into silence.

Ever seen that picture of a snake eating itself? Shreene Hale, the woman who invented intimidation as public-participation kryptonite used it in her public comments to accuse her former employer of intimidation tactics that she used when she worked there ... which aforementioned tactics said employer still uses against employees and the public (e.g., Shireene presently).

The ever-composed Mike Thomas, who is accustomed to helping people invent intimidation stories rather than be on the receiving end, found himself out-maneuvered ... caught off-guard. After Dehlendorf finished, Thomas asked to make some comments himself. It stings to be out-smarted by Hale, and it showed in Thomas' comportment. Thomas said he was offended by the public access comments (although he didn't say they were untrue).

In upcoming posts, we'll explore the codependent relationship that has developed between the Council and Mike Thomas. It seems wherever Mike Thomas goes, allegations of misconduct follow. Mike Thomas has now been accused publicly of intimidating private citizens. The Prosecuting Attorney found that he violated County policies and procedures. This, along with other allegations, would appear to violate the County's employment contract with Thomas.

But, we have reached the point in San Juan County where Mike Thomas doesn't just run San Juan County government, he IS San Juan County government. Whatever Mike Thomas says, goes. The job of this Council is simply to back up Mike Thomas. They have given him raises, cleared him of wrongdoing. Mike Thomas is bulletproof. As the Prosecuting Attorney declared when clearing Mike Thomas of Improper Government Action (IGA) in the Portland Fair situation:

Manager has the duty to "comply with all lawful governing body directives, state and federal law, Employer policies, rules and ordinances. ..." See County Manager Employment Agreement and San Juan County Charter Section 4.40 and 4.41. The IGA Report mentions similar obligations of employees in the Personnel Rules Section 15, but the Personnel Rules (which have not been updated since the adoption of the Charter in 2005 or Charter Amendments in 2012) were not written to apply to management level employees and do not apply to the County Manager. See Section 1.010 and Chapter 4 of the 1992 Personnel Rules.

No rules apply to him. This is why Mike Thomas can approve (or disapprove) any wetland study ... or anything else for that matter. He can do whatever he wants, and the Council (and the PA too) have backed him. The dynamic that has emerged within the employment ranks of San Juan County is that if you are loyal to Mike Thomas, your job is safe. If you aren't, you will be eliminated.

Looks like Gibboney is safe.

A Rosendorf Consensus

In my absence, Howie Rosenfeld and David Dehlendorf have expounded (and expounded ... and expounded) on their view of a liberal society. In a Rosendorf liberal society, a woman (or any citizen) would be allowed to join a union ... she would be allowed reproductive choice. Heaven forbid, though, if that same woman wanted a barn ... or if she wanted a large-ish multigenerational house on her own property to age in place ... or if she wanted to freely associate with some of her fellow community members while serving on the Planning Commission.

In the liberal society of Rosendorf, you can have only as much freedom as Rosendorf allows you ... but don't even think of having any more than that ... and don't dare disagree with Rosendorf. In a Rosendorf liberal society, consensus is the socially acceptable way of promoting intolerance. If there's a consensus, then dammit, Rosendorf doesn't want to hear any other opinions.

In a Rosendorf liberal society, people are urged to protect nesting habitat for birds, but ignore the fact that Rosenfeld governed during an era of unprecedented growth in local government spending that included major road construction and stormwater projects which unnecessarily removed hundreds of trees. In their brand of liberal society, Rosendorf express mock outrage (right around election filing time) about undue influence on the Planning Commission of today, while conveniently forgetting that a Friends' President was a Planning Commissioner during the guest house litigation.

In a Rosendorf liberal society, we only have a few problems ... local government isn't quite powerful enough yet ... our County budgets aren't quite big enough yet ... we don't have quite enough planners yet ... we aren't quite as protected as we should be yet ... we aren't listening to bureaucrats at Ecology enough yet ... we don't have quite enough grant money yet ... and we still don't have quite enough consensus yet.

And Rosendorf aren't quite preachy or hypocritical enough yet either.

Catching Up (Again) - Ethics and PSSA's

As usual, there has been a lot going on, and my thanks to commenters who keep abreast of information even when I am unable to post. Here are a few recent items of particular note:

• David Dehlendorf and Friends Attorney Kyle Loring raised a stink about the fact that three Common Sense Alliance (CSA) Board members sit on the Planning Commission. Dehlenloring alleged that it was a conflict of interest since CSA is opposing the County's draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in court. Loring even said that the conflict was so obvious that it was "Ethics 101." If it is Ethics 101, then Dehlendorf and Loring are late to class.
  
  Unlike the Friends, CSA has never received a penny from the County and never voted to give itself grant funding. Unlike the Friends, CSA is a relative newcomer to County advisory committees. In fact, when Mike Carlson of CSA was appointed to the Planning Commission, he replaced Mike Kaill, former President of the Friends Board. Kaill's tenure on the Planning Commission coincided with the Friends opposition (including lawsuits) of the County's guesthouse legislation. Where were Dehlenloring's concerns about ethics then? Or ... when Susan Dehlendorf took a "straw poll" of Planning Commissioners regarding the CAO last year, where were the concerns about ethics?
  
  Ethics 101? It seems more like Ethics-ish 101. When Dehlenloring are interested in ethics for everybody instead of simply using the name of ethics as a tool to advance their own interests, then we're more likely to pay attention. By the way, our Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the issue and twice produced a written opinion saying there is no conflict. The Planning Commission is only an advisory body to the Council, and as such, no conflict exists.

• By now, most people have probably heard that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been armoring the beach at Watmough Bay, one of the most beloved pocket beaches in all the islands ... and certainly one of the most beloved beaches on Lopez Island. There are several incredible ironies about this story, which we will cover in greater detail in an upcoming post. First, the hard armoring isn't even protecting any structures. Second, despite all the meetings with BLM officials over the past few months about local outreach and involvement, apparently no locals knew the hard armoring project was in the works. Third, the BLM produced an Environmental Assessment of the proposed work which led to a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). Think about that for a moment ... the federal government armored a beach in the National Monument and there are no significant impacts, and yet the Friends oppose nearly every dock and armoring project on the grounds that there are environmental impacts. Fourth, one of the contractors involved in the Watmough Bay project, Coastal Geologic Services, is the Friends "go to" consultant whenever the Friends oppose docks and armoring. It's hard to believe the Friends didn't know about the Watmough Bay project ahead of time ... and yet they said nothing, even as they opposed other armoring projects elsewhere and opposed the expansion of the Islander Resort on Fisherman Bay too. There are more ironies, but ... we'll cover them in the upcoming full post.

• Speaking of the Friends, they're at it again. One of the key strategies of the Friends is to take local issues and link them to national and international affairs, so that we become subsumed into a global matrix of restrictions based on the pretense of "local protection." Case in point was Stephanie Buffum signing a treaty to protect the Salish Sea last March. As we've seen, the Friends' megalomania becomes especially virulent when it comes into contact with grant money. Below is an email from ex-CDPD employee Elizabeth Anderson talking to the usual suspects ... Barbara Rosenkotter and Stephanie Buffum ... about (wait for it) a grant to designate our waters a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). I know ... yet another acronym. It never ends. Some of you may remember Elizabeth Anderson, whose employment with CDPD was justified by (you guessed it) a grant, and who was put in charge of writing a County Solid Waste Management Plan during the collapse of the County's solid waste management system. Her time here could not have been more fruitless and pointless.
  
  Now she is touting another "brilliant program."

__________________________________________________

From: Elizabeth Anderson

To: Barbara Rosenkotter

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:53:00 -0700

Subject: Fwd: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion

Attachment(s): 1

OOPS! I forgot to copy you on this.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Anderson <ebanderson12@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion
To: Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org>

Stephanie - this is a brilliant program with a high degree of probability of success in preventing oil spills. However, it does not fit the NTA where I had notes that you would provide some further milestones. I attach the revised table thus far.  The only red letters are under SD 1B, where I thought you had more to add.  It may be fine as-is.

Do I need to add anything from yesterday's IC discussion?

Thanks, 

Elizabeth

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org> wrote:

The purpose of the Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) for the Salish Sea Feasibility Study is to investigate the possible benefits and costs of enhancing the management regime  of the areas surrounding the shipping lanes surrounding the San Juan Island National Monument, through the creation of an internationally mandated Particularly Sensitive Sea Area for the Salish Sea. This potential designation can only be achieved if the area is particularly sensitive (in ecological and cultural terms) and the existing regulatory regime does not adequately protect it. Whilst such PSSA designations have been recognized in other parts of the United States and the international community, they have not been considered in the context of the highly vulnerable Salish Sea.

Goal: 

To communicate to the Salish Sea populace, including organizations, business, Tribes and First Nations and government, what important ecological and cultural values are present in the Salish Sea, their fragility, and how they will be negatively impacted upon if the risk of vessel traffic in this area is not adequately managed, as it is in other part of the United States, and similarly, within the international community. Simply, we wish to show the gaps in our regulatory protection of the Salish Sea, and an existing tool can be applied to fix this problem, to the benefit of both the ecology and the surrounding communities.

Objectives:

1.     To provide a principle campaign tool for protecting marine waters.

2.     To educate the public about what is at stake if large scale shipping traffic of potentially hazardous cargo, is not adequately regulated.

3.     To show how adequate management has been achieved in comparable areas with similar risks to the Salish Sea.

4.     To empower local groups, including Tribes and First Nations, eco-tourism operators with information for their own campaigns to protect the Salish Sea, and to learn from the experience of other communities facing similar difficulties

5.     To develop “new evidence” to bring to any review process.

6.     To provide an Alternative, which has been successfully adopted elsewhere,  to reduce the risk of an oil spill in the Salish Sea.

Audience and campaign

The audience is the general population of the Salish Sea. The request for designation will require Washington State Tribes and Canadian First Nations, federal, provincial, state and local leaders and public officials to support this designation. Key business leaders and ngo organizations in British Columbia and the US, principally within Washington State, will be essential for cultivating support for these two proposals separately in the US and in Canada. 

Cost: $35,000 for Feasibility Report. Gap: $25,000

$90,000 for full nomination in the US and Canada, conference, materials. Gap: $90,000

Quick Hits - A Heron Catchup

Despite the lack of posts, there has been a lot going on:

• The Friends have been busy. Together with Futurewise, they held three grant-funded messaging sessions disguised as "Shoreline Science Forums" (Lopez - May 10, San Juan - May 17, and Orcas - June 4). Also, they have been busy opposing shoreline stabilization projects on San Juan Island, objecting to projects by the Woodmans (project approved), Laufers (awaiting decision), and Dickinsons (awaiting decision).  In addition, the Friends continue to crank away on their CAO appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). One of the interesting claims made by the Friends in their GMHB filings is the notion that tourists to the San Juans have "investment-backed expectations" regarding their experiences here (i.e., tourists don't want to see no stinkin' houses). The Friends' relationship with tourism is a flip-floppy one. They back the Scenic Byway and like to use the supposed interests of tourists to justify anti-resident initiatives like the CAOs. However, the Friends are simultaneously opposing expansion of camping sites and RV hookups at the Lopez Islander Resort. On June 7, they held an informational meeting on Lopez with opponents of the proposed Islander expansion. I wonder if the residents who oppose the Islander expansion have any idea that the Friends would probably like to get rid of them even more.

• Susan Dehlendorf resigned from the Planning Commission. In her resignation letter (posted below), she said "I feel strongly that those individuals who are willing to work in government service deserve our gratitude and respect. I deplore the fact that public servants are subject to denigration and attacks as they do their professional work." And despite those expressed sentiments, in the very same letter Dehlendorf denigrated some of her fellow Commissioners (who are all volunteer public servants) by characterizing them as partisan representatives of special interests.

• In an interesting development, the former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, visited the San Juans along with investors (Jamen Shively) who seek to capitalize on the legalization of marijuana in this state by developing national marijuana brands. The leadership group for this effort held a symposium last weekend on San Juan Island on the topic of marijuana and cancer. Some residents here are beginning to ask whether the San Juans should somehow get in on the ground-floor of what many are calling the "Starbucks of Pot."

• Lastly, the San Juan Journal has started a blog. We wish them the best of luck, and if you happen to stop by to read their blog, be sure to come back here and let us know what you think. Leave a comment.

Click to enlarge. Right click to download

The Mean Girls Of San Juan-istan

In the movie Mean Girls, a homeschooled girl (coincidentally named Cady Heron) returns home to America after living with her zoologist parents in Africa for 12 years. She enters public high school and discovers a clique-ish world of girl-on-girl cattiness that is more vicious than any predator she may have encountered in Africa.

In the gender-neutral style of modern America, our San Juan County Mean Girls encompass both men and women, and they are proud of themselves. You can find the rantings of our Plastics on County news outlets. It is difficult for us to comment on recent web-fits by Kivisto, Dehlendorf, Azous, and Rosenfeld since we are not fluent in gibberish, but we can say that they almost always discredit themselves with self-styled hypocrisy. Kivisto, for example, has editorialized in the past about civility (or lack of it) and then pitched a pencil-throwing tantrum at a public meeting. In her most recent piece, Kivisto ridicules the legitimate fear that citizens feel while she simultaneously plugs draconian retaliatory enforcement. Azous gets in on the act too, applauding Kivisto, but we have heard of several islanders who will never let Azous near their property again because of what she has done to them. Rosenfeld opines about fictitious big-money Republican PACs even though the Democratically-endorsed candidates in this election have raised over $68,000. And Dehlendorf ... well ... the only thing that comes to mind when reading Dehlendorf is Aesop's fable about the Ass in the Lion's Skin.

And the fact that our local Mean Girls are ranting recently about blogs and cached web pages emphasizes how bereft of content our local news coverage has become. Like the CAOs themselves, our County news outlets are filled with pages and pages of content-less mean-spiritedness hidden behind phony talk of community and environmental protection. Real stories about island people and the workings of County government are ignored.

The Mean Girls from our islands feel the County is being abused by its citizens rather than the other way around. The "law is the law," we hear them say. They want land-use violators punished ... severely ... and they want as many land-use laws as they can get. Makes you wonder what sort of eco-planning-sharia laws they would put in place if there were no opposition? Have you ever heard them exercise self-restraint? How far would they go? When is the last time we heard any of the Mean Girls say, "Oh, I think that law or enforcement action goes too far?"

There will always be Mean Girls in our midst, but do we want to continue letting them run the place?

"And I was like, 'Why are you so obsessed with me?'"

State Of The County

One year ago today, we published our first blogpost.

Since then, the County has passed the dreadful and unintelligible CAOs; adopted the second largest budget in County history; added millions to County debt; held two elections; passed the CRC changes; been sued twice (one involving the CRC and one involving the CAOs); is facing two appeals before the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB); has held two elections (general election for the Winter Council and a primary for the 3-person Council); and is in the midst of another election.

Quite a year.

We've seen the Friends manipulate government to abuse our neighbors. We've learned about the Stewardship Network and its coordinated PSP-paid-for-messaging that "Puget Sound is in trouble" and that "our environment is our economy," and we've seen how the Madrona Institute run by Ron Zee has set up a Council-bypassing alternate grant-supply for County entities like the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) ... while it takes a modest 5% to 10% cut.

Quite a year.

We've had a year of pablum from Sound Publishing (Journal, Sounder, and Island Weekly). We've witnessed hypocrisy (Vivian Burnett) and lies (some yet to be revealed). We've seen the usual vitriol, distortion, and incivility from the very people who accuse others of those traits. We've had candidates run on their records ... and despite their records being filled with secret meetings, New Economics, and dubious connections to everything that makes this place troubling ... a sizable proportion of our neighbors remain unconcerned and uninvolved ... if not supportive.

Quite a year. What will the future bring?

It all depends on us.

Quickhits: Nonpartisanship, Planning Commission

Don Pollard has a great letter in the Island Guardian about nonpartisanship. Howie Rosenfeld says that everything is partisan. What do you think?

The appointment of Tim Blanchard to the Planning Commission is getting a lot of attention. Blanchard is on the Board of the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), and he replaces Evelyn Fuchser, whose term expired. Fuchser was on the Board of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR).

Blanchard's appointment caused David Dehlendorf (husband of a Planning Commissioner) to send an apoplectic email to the County Council, objecting to Blanchard's appointment. You can read Dehlendorf's screed here. Dehlendorf is concerned about CSA having too many members on the Planning Commission, but if Dehlendorf had examined the voting records of the "CSA Planning Commissioners," he would have realized that they have not voted as a bloc -- not even regarding the CAOs. The people who have voted as a bloc on the Planning Commission have been most of the non-CSA, non-CAPR members. Susan Dehlendorf, Barbara Thomas, Bob Gamble, Stephen Adams, and Karin Agosta almost always vote the same way, and nearly all of them are involved in the campaigns of Byers and/or Pratt.

Why the sudden concern for balance on the County's committees? For me, the fuss is reminiscent of the racial integration of schools back in the 50s, with Dehlendorf playing the role of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Goodness, we can't have integration here. That would destroy our way of life!

Blanchard just wrote to the Council in response to Dehlendorf's letter. Have a look.
________________________________________________

 Members of the County Council:

I am writing to address recent assertions by David Dehlendorf that I failed to "fully and properly" disclose potential conflicts of interest in my application to serve on the Planning Commission.  (San Juan Islander, Feb 6, 2013.)  I am at a loss concerning the relevance of much of Mr. Dehlendorf's letter, but wanted to make clear to Council that my disclosure of potential conflicts was "full" and "proper."

For the record:

I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization.  As its website states, CSA "provides the vehicle through which information can be provided to citizens and government alike, allowing citizens to be more engaged in our charter government and requiring government to follow established law and process to provide fair and enforceable laws for Islanders." www.commonsensealliance.net.

In my application, I identified CSA as an organization in which I "serve in a decision making capacity," and further disclosed my service as an officer of the Board.

I do not serve as CSA's "principal attorney."  Neither I, nor my firm, have ever been engaged as legal counsel for CSA or provided legal advice to CSA. Public comments that I have made on behalf of CSA were made in my capacity as one of CSA’s vice presidents.

I am not a "party to a lawsuit against the County." Nor has CSA initiated a "lawsuit" against the County.  CSA recently filed administrative appeals with the Growth Management Hearings Board, in furtherance of its public comments regarding the recently adopted Critical Areas Ordinance provisions. 

I am not sure why Mr. Dehlendorf was unaware of the vacancy on the Commission.  The regular vacancy notice and request for applications were posted on the County website and I believe the terms of Planning Commission members have also been consistently listed on the County website.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tim Blanchard

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #15 - Lack of Definition

One of the biggest flaws in the proposed CAOs relates to the County's cognitive inability to understand the distinction between "definition" and "designation." In the CAO on critical aquifer recharge, for example, the County designated the entire area of the county as an aquifer recharge area, but clearly, not everywhere in the county meets the definition of a recharge area. The County cannot turn impervious surface into a recharge area any more than it can turn water into wine. The power to "designate" is not without limitation.

This is an important point because the RCW requires that designations/classifications be based on definitions. It's a two-fer (definition + designation/classification), and it's the law. The minimum guidelines for critical areas specifically say that classification will be based on definitions.

RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and critical areas.(1) Subject to the definitions provided in RCW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW, no later than September 1, 1990, to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands; (b) forest lands; (c) mineral resource lands; and (d) critical areas.

This language is repeated elsewhere with specific emphasis on shorelines.

RCW 36.70A.480 Shorelines of the state.
(5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the state qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36.70A.030(5) and have been designated as such by a local government pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2).

The courts have made it clear that compliance with the minimum guidelines is the first step in evaluating the validity of County compliance with critical area and resource lands designation and protection. Continuing with shorelines as a case in point, the WAC provides a list of the types of areas that need to be considered for inclusion into a Fish & Wildlife Habitat critical area. But the Planning Commission did not do any evaluation of whether such areas in the County might actually meet the definition of a critical area, but simply copied the list into the draft code. The WAC states:

"Fish and wildlife habitat conservation" means land management for maintaining populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean not degrading or reducing populations or habitats so that they are no longer viable over the long term.

The Planning Commission did not consider the facts related to the definition prior to designating all shorelines as critical. That's a major fail.

You see, if a person were to designate or label without first considering the facts related to definition, then the chances of being completely wrong are quite high. For example, a person might vociferously designate/label an adversary as being the suspected author of a disliked blog comment or blog post, but if the facts don't support the definition of authorship, then the allegations are just fire-breathing nonsense. It doesn't make the alleger crazy, necessarily. It just makes him wrong at the top of his lungs.

Likewise, when a collection of straw-poll cronies on the Planning Commission decides to designate all shorelines as critical without first considering whether the shorelines meet the definition of "critical," then such baseless, prejudicial designation represents wholesale failure to comply with the minimum guidelines in the law.

We live in a community with many proponents for prejudice. Prejudice and discrimination arise from stereotyping those who do not conform to societal and cultural norms. We at the Trojan Heron embrace civic knowledge, and we feel it is our duty to challenge the sterotypes, prejudicial claims, and designations made by eco-phonies and eco-bigots, even when (or especially when) such challenges conflict with the prevailing societal and cultural norms here; since we very strongly believe that our existing community standards do not live up to the definition of a free and open society, much less a scientific one.

Almost every day, events here seem to bear that out.

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #13 - Some Are More Equal

Do you know what a fumblerule is? It's a rule of grammar that contains an example contrary to the advice that it gives. For instance, "Don't use no double negatives" is a fumblerule. Another is "Stamp out and abolish redundancy."

Speaking of stamping out and abolishing, that's exactly what (at least) half the Council members wanted to do to an ardent supporter of the Trojan Heron, at the urging of two Friends. Over the last couple of days, one of our readers, Mike Carlson, has been the target of a County witch hunt simply because he praised the Trojan Heron's CAO commentary. Mike serves on the Planning Commission, which by the way, has concluded its deliberations of the CAOs. Nevertheless, Mike's praise of our CAO stance so incensed David Dehlendorf and Stephanie Buffum that they asked Council members Howie Rosenfeld, Lovel Pratt, and Patty Miller to have Mike censured or even removed from the Planning Commission. Simultaneously, Dehlendorf and others lobbied the Planning Commission Chair, Brian Ehrmantraut, to take the matter under serious consideration for the next Planning Commission meeting.

Apparently, those three Council members and their Friends really thought they had something. The Council members were outraged enough by Mike's behavior to ask Randy Gaylord, the Prosecuting Attorney, what could be done about Mike. That's interesting because Rosenfeld/Pratt/Miller showed no apparent outrage when Susan Dehlendorf took a straw poll (forbidden by Roberts Rules) during Planning Commission proceedings about CAO shorelines? Where was their outrage when Howie Rosenfeld expressed bias about the CAOs in a meeting with the Attorney General? Where was their outrage when Patty Miller proceeded with Council hearings on the Fish & Wildlife CAO before the Planning Commission had voted on it?  Wow ... glass houses all over the place, I'd say. No wonder some people are beginning to refer to this group as the County Clowncil.  Also, I guess we now know what that new "Law and Justice" sales tax was for: to save the County from Mike Carlson and the Trojan Heron!

One of "their" favorite tactics is to accuse dissenters like Mike of being uncivil, unethical, or unprofessional (see emails below). This is where the analogy to fumblerules comes into play because the repeat accusers are the embodiment of the behavior they purportedly oppose. "They" are a tableau vivant of fumblerules regarding civility, ethics, and professionalism. They behave like a civility lynch mob. The Friends and their friends in high places have enjoyed such hegemony here for so long, that any criticism apparently causes stress they are unable to cope with.

Why is this a CAO flaw? Because it shows the shenanigans in our County government, and it illustrates how the CAOs will be used for witch hunts. Those with influence and power will be able to manipulate the CAO and government apparatus to serve their own ends at the expense of the rest of society. The CAOs are so complicated and vague they can be construed to mean whatever "they" need it to mean in order to go after undesirables. Fortunately, it didn't work ... this time ... because the central matter here is the Constitution, not the CAOs per se, and our Prosecuting Attorney knows his First Amendment. But they'll try again. It's what "they" do.

The CAOs just give "them" more tools at their beck and call. As we keep saying here at the Trojan Heron, the CAOs are not about the environment. The CAOs are about control and punishment by a very select few against the rest of us. Think about it; within the course of one business day, emails from just two well-connected CAO advocates were able to mobilize HALF the Council to consider action against a law-abiding, upstanding, long-time islander. Reflect on that kind of power compared to the deaf ears encountered by armies of concerned citizens showing up in person at Council meetings in a futile effort to have their CAO concerns addressed. The entire Mike Carlson incident lends further credibility to the Orwellian adage that some are more equal than others.

____________________________________________________________________

From: Lovel Pratt <LovelP@sanjuanco.com>

Subject: FW: Immediate Request - Planning Commissioner Attack on San Juan County Resident

Date: August 13, 2012 2:09:35 PM PDT

To: Patty Miller <PattyM@sanjuanco.com>

Cc: Bob Jean <bobj@sanjuanco.com>

Hi Patty,

How do you propose this be dealt with (and the similar request from David D. to Brian E.)?

Lovel

Lovel Pratt

San Juan County Council, District 1

Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st floor

Phone: 360-370-7473

Mail: 350 Court Street, No. 1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56 et al.

From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:57 AM
To: DL - Council; Maureen See
Subject: Immediate Request - Planning Commissioner Attack on San Juan County Resident

Dear County Council,

The Trojan Heron blog and its endorsement and forwarding to our island community by San Juan County Planning Commissioner Mike Carlson is unprofessional and unbecoming as a public servant.  Mr. Carlson’s email below, which he sent as an attack to Ms. Alderton, endorses a statement that "Janet Alderton should be sent to the asylum along with the rest of her crazed Friends.”  This type of an attack on a resident by a San Juan County Planning Commissioner requires immediate attention.   As a member of a County advisory council, we request that the County Council reprimand  Planning Commissioner Mike Carlson or remove him from public service. Sincerely, Stephanie Buffum Field Executive Director FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS POB 1344 Friday Harbor, WA  98250 _________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Randall Gaylord <RandallG@sanjuanco.com> Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM Subject: Planning Commission Member Mike Carlson To: DL - Council <Council@sanjuanco.com> Cc: "Brian Ehrmantraut (bae@alumni.princeton.edu)" <bae@alumni.princeton.edu>, Bob Jean <bobj@sanjuanco.com>, Jon Cain <JonC@sanjuanco.com> BACKGROUND Three council members have asked for my opinion about the actions of Mike Carlson in writing an email which two citizens have brought the attention of the County Council as being offensive. This review is made quickly and done in an email to save time. Because this email incorporates items from other sources, my words are shown in large, bold print. FACTS Every case involving facts regarding speech – whether spoken or written – requires a detailed understanding of the facts and an examination of the exact words used. I understand the allegedly offensive email of Mike Carlson is as follows: --- On Mon, 8/13/12, Mike Carlson <mcarlson@rockisland.com> wrote: From: Mike Carlson <mcarlson@rockisland.com> Subject: The Trojan Heron To: "mike" <mcarlson@rockisland.com> Cc: "Janet Alderton" <jmalderton@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 6:28 AM http://trojanheron.blogspot.com/ Dear Fellow Islanders, The attached link says it well. How many of you "Garden Variety Islanders" have EVER heard of any toxic levels of any of the compounds that Ms. Alderton has cited as the reason your house must be kept further away any possible wetland than it can be now. I have not. The Common Sense Alliance paid thousands of dollars for soil testing around several home sites and one "island scale" industrial site located un-buffered right above a pristine wetland ( Lawson Construction's yard). These tests did not show there were toxic levels of anything within harmful levels. I have cc'd Ms Alderton in this e-mail so maybe she will help to educate all of you about how bad your home site is for the environment....I will forward. This type of regulation is like being told you have a flat tire on your car and being told thatv you need to replace your boat motor to fix it!! Mike The blog at trojanheron.blogspot.com, that is referred to the Carlson email is entitled “Flaw #8 – Science Fiction”, is authored by “ECK,” and is set forth at full length below for your convenience: Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #8 - Science Fiction Friends Board member, Janet Alderton, who never met a person she couldn't lecture, has a letter in a local news blog about unfounded CAO fears. In it, she claims that the new CAOs will hardly change anything for homeowners, which (if true) just begs the obvious question of why are we changing them at all? The fact is that the new CAOs will change everything for our community, but if Janet is genuinely interested in unfounded claims, perhaps she should re-read the text of the CAOs which she helped to write. Here's an excerpt from the proposed CAO for wetlands. As discussed in the BAS Synthesis, runoff from areas influenced by human development is well characterized (National Research Council, 2008) and is often contaminated with an array of pollutants, including: those from lawn and garden chemicals (containing both active ingredients and surfactants that can negatively affect aquatic species); building materials including pressure treated lumber (containing copper chromated arsenate), zinc and copper impregnated shingles and roofing strips, and roofing materials containing phthalates (plastic gutters and downspouts, roofing felt, roof membranes); fertilizers; rodent poisons; termite spray and other insecticides; moss control products; deicers; contaminants associated with automobiles, including oil, antifreeze, rubber and metals from the wear of tires, brakes and other parts; and sediment from dirt and gravel driveways. Many of these contaminants are directly associated with the choices and practices of the property owner and are difficult or impossible to regulate. If they are allowed to enter surface water bodies, these pollutants can contaminate and become concentrated in the food web, negatively affecting aquatic habitats and species. Is well characterized? Is often contaminated with an array of pollutants? Are impossible to regulate? Can contaminate and become concentrated in the food web? Talk about unfounded! There isn't a shred of evidence about de manifestis concentrations of pollution from any of those hypothetical sources in this county. It's a specious premise, and it displays the fundamental error with all the CAOs: "they" have assumed a problem without any evidence. Then, "they" have "solved" the problem with draconian measures. It's equivalent to a faith healer diagnosing you with cancer or some other horrible disease, and then laying his hands upon you and saying you are cured. Well, many folks don't want the County's hands upon them, or anyone else's hands either. Leave us alone. We're not sick, and we don't need your "help." The CAOs read like science fiction because that is what they are. I wish Scotty could beam us all up. Posted by ECK at 4:50 PM 4 comments: The blog trojanheron.blogspot.com allows posts to be made to the blog. Four posts are found after clicking on the words “4 comments”. Those four comments are set forth in full length as follows: 4 Comments Close this windowJump to comment form 1 – 4 of 4 Anonymous said... The Letter is also mostly false August 10, 2012 6:04 PM ECK said... I presume you are talking about Janet Alderton's letter at sanjuanislander.com referred to in this post. Yes, I agree. It is mostly false. What else would you have expected? August 10, 2012 6:08 PM Anonymous said... A few posts back someone gave some numbers showing a large percentage of the shoreline parcels have absentee ownership. I live in an area of the shoreline and I walk a lot. I believe it is true. There is no one there almost year round on most of these properties. So maybe there is a structure, a house, these incredible claims of pollution can be claimed against, but there are no people. No tires and brakes, no human activity, nothing. Dull as dog shit, none of that either, nothing is going on, nothing is polluting anything because there is no activity which would do so, the whole thing is a fairy tale. August 10, 2012 6:56 PM Cotton Mather said... One of the oldest jokes and stereotypes in American popular culture and literature is the scolding Puritanical hypocrite whose self-absorbed self-satisfied self-righteousness so completely blots out any semblance of mindful self-reflection that they cannot begin to understand their hilarious tendency towards self-contradiction. Yes the letter is mostly false, but that is not intentional it is simply the by-product of the fundamentalist mind-set that produced both it, and the rest of the ill-considered fantasy behind the CAO. Alderton's letter is truly funny. But the scary part is that she is one of the insiders, one of the real framers of this madness. She should be sent to the asylum along with the rest of her crazed Friends. Leave us alone. August 11, 2012 10:30 AM Stephanie Buffum, the executive director of the Friends claims that Mr. Carlson’s email is “an endorsement” of the comments of Cotton Mather; that it is “an attack” on Ms. Alderton that is “unprofessional and unbecoming as a public servant”. Ms Buffum asks the council to “reprimand Mike Carlson or remove him from public service.” SHORT ANALYSIS We do not agree with Ms. Buffum that Mr. Carlson’s email amounts to “an endorsement” of the comments of Cotton Mather; an attack on Ms. Alderton; or represents some action that is so offensive that it requires action by the Council. After identifying the blog, Mr. Carlson writes “the attached link says it well.” The link takes you to the page without the comments. Mr. Carlson does not mention the comment of Cotton Mather and it requires an extra step to go to another webpage to see the comments. On my computer, this required an extra step to open the page in a new window. I do not believe that the written word shows that Mr. Carlson “endorses” the comments of Cotton Mather. If any person refers others a blog or news story together with an opinion of approval, it is not an “endorsement” of the comments attached to the blog or news story. Another point to consider is that Mr. Carlson invited Ms. Alderton to reply to him by copying her on his email. While not determinative, it is not consistent with the email being “an attack.” Another point to consider is that Mr. Carlson was not acting in his official capacity as a Planning Commission member. The planning commission is an advisory committee of the County Council and the Council that has a representation of many diverse interests. Like other advisory committees, the Council has established rules for the discipline and order of its members when acting in an official capacity. We do not believe that SJCC 2.116.310, as set forth below, is triggered by the email of Mr. Carlson. 2.116.310 Discipline and order. A. In the event an advisory body member fails to comply with a decision of the chair or any of these rules, the chair may declare the member out of order. B. With respect to a member who is out of order, the following discipline may be imposed at the discretion of the chair: 1. The member may be warned without sanction; 2. The member may be excluded from discussion on the item of business at hand; 3. The member may be excluded from discussion of all items of business; or 4. For gross interference with the meeting, the member may be removed from that meeting. C. A member who is declared out of order has the right to appeal the decision of the chair both as to the question of whether the member was out of order and as to the question of discipline. The advisory body shall approve or deny the appeal by a majority vote of those present, except that the extreme sanction of removal from a meeting shall be upheld only by the vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the advisory body. D. If the advisory body upholds the declaration that the member is out of order or the discipline, the member has the right to dissent for the record before the imposition of sanctions. E. These sanctions should be used sparingly and only to the extent necessary to keep order. F. In the event a member is repeatedly out of order or whose actions are disruptive and counterproductive, a two-thirds majority of the advisory body may request that the County council replace this member. (Ord. 12-2008 § 14) Finally, we must remember that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution freely protects freedom of speech and freedom of association. Discipline or even scolding members of volunteer commissions for actions that are not taken in an official capacity, and not subject to the procedures of SJCC 8.116.310 present a genuine risk could be construed as a “prior restraint” and is otherwise improper. The fact that a Planning Commission member maintains an email list, are shares ideas with members of the Common Sense Alliance is not a basis for taking action. There is no reference to Mr. Carlson as a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Carlson referred only to a group he is known to be associated with – the Common Sense Alliance – and Mr. Carlson reported the findings of some studies looking for pollutants that countermand the statements of Ms. Alderton. We note the Supreme Court has only excluded – and not protected – an employee’s speech when the employee was making a statement in his or her official capacity. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1960 (2006). Nothing we have been shown indicates that Mr. Carlson was acting in his official capacity as a member of the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION You should proceed with extreme caution whenever you are concerned about the discipline of an employee or volunteer because of speech or activities that occur outside of the workplace. Given the facts as presented, I recommend that no action be taken by the Council or the Planning Commission. Please call if you have any questions. Randy Randall K. Gaylord San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner 350 Court Street First Floor PO Box 760 Friday Harbor, WA 360-378-4101