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.

Election Overview

While there are some controversial races around the county this election season, there is nothing like what we've been through over the last year. The Trojan Heron had hoped to do some election postings, but unfortunately, time and events have overtaken us. Nevertheless, we'll give a brief rundown of the main election choices, with greater detail for those topics we know more about ... but we hope commenters will pitch in with their views to fill in the many gaps. Since we are locally focused blog, we'll focus on the local issues (i.e. not the two State measures, 517 and 522).

Let us know what you think ...

• Overview - Of the 36 elected positions to be filled, 24 (67%) are uncontested. We think having that many uncontested elections is an indicator of an unhealthy democracy. Is it really an election if there is no choice? Some of the uncontested elections involve very influential positions too, such as the "race" for the mayor of Friday Harbor. Also, it seems like politics is a family affair in San Juan County. Two spouses of current or former Council members are running ... Carrie Lacher for Friday Harbor Mayor and Lauren Stephens for Fisherman Bay Sewer District ... and Lacher's husband, former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld, is running for San Juan County Hospital District #1. In addition to the individual races, there is a ballot measure for Lopez to fund the Solid Waste District for the coming year. Also, there is a county-wide measure to amend the Charter. A "yes" vote on the Charter amendment would allow voters to petition for a change in our county's residency districts, rather than have that power rest solely with the Charter Review Commission. A "no" vote would leave things as is.

• San Juan Island - Of the 17 races, only 4 are contested ... one for the Port, one for the Hospital District, one for Parks and Recreation, and the Friday Harbor Council race between Farhad Ghatan and Matt Shildneck. Of the 4, the race for Hospital District has probably attracted the most attention.  That race pits former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld versus newcomer Mark Schwinge. By this stage of his political career, Rosenfeld is a well-known commodity, and without having analyzed any of the specific issues in this race, the Trojan Heron thinks it is a welcome sign that new blood, like Schwinge, is willing to run. However, we would love to hear readers' comments about this race.

• Orcas Island - Of the 11 races on Orcas, only 1 is contested. Unfortunately, this is an unwelcome Orcas pattern. Need I remind readers that Orcas also had the only uncontested Council race in recent memory when Patty Miller ran unopposed for Council a few years ago. Orcas voters are generally well informed and active, but when it comes to running for office ... many well-qualified Orcasites prefer to sit on the sidelines.

• Lopez Island - As delightful as it is to make fun of Lopez, of the 8 Lopez races, 6 are contested. If only the rest of our county could have as many well-qualified candidates running as Lopez does, our democracy would be in much better shape.
  
  Most of the contested Lopez races are for the School Board. The slate of School Board incumbents supported a lavish multimillion-dollar school bond measure that got crushed at the polls during the last election (how many times does that happen?). They are being challenged by newcomers emphasizing fiscal responsibility and performance rather than profligate spending. The incumbents include a Friends director (Dixie Budke) and others with ties to the Lopez Community Land Trust (Clive Prout and John Helding). The challengers mostly have strong financial and business experience ... and one of the challengers, Teddy McCullough, has a unique perspective as a recent Lopez High graduate. Teddy is currently in college in Washington DC and, if elected, intends to juggle his college and School Board responsibilities by attending School Board meetings telephonically.
  
  There is much passion on Lopez about the future direction of the school, and speaking of passion, that brings us to the Lopez Port District race. Incumbent Dan Post is being challenged by former incumbent Bob Porter. There has been a lot of smoke blown about this race, unfairly aimed at Dan Post. Post is an effective voice for transparency at the Port, and Post has been the subject of special-interest scorn over the years because he believes the Port should serve the broader Lopez community rather than simply serve pilots. The other two Port Commissioners, Bruce Dunlop and (County Planning Commissioner) Steven Adams, simply want Post eliminated, and Bob Porter is their candidate. That's a problem because watching Dunlop and Adams manage the Lopez Port is akin to watching Lucy and Ethel wrap candy ... they're in over their heads and unable to keep up ... but some of Dunlop/Adams' antics have even warranted more serious scrutiny. Earlier this year, according to sources, the FAA Inspector General and the FBI opened an investigation looking into some of the Port's affairs.
  
  One of the best summaries of the Lopez Port race is a comment left by Nick and Sara Jones on Lopez/Salish Rocks, which is copied below.  Many of the points raised by Nick and Sara could just as easily apply to any of our county races.

We have been following with some interest the race between Dan Post and Bob Porter for Port. It seems that the complaint about Dan, the argument for replacing him, is that he is not a "team player." This is an interesting line of attack, to say the least. It implies that the best candidate for any given position is the one who is going to get along with the others best. Kind of like seeking out a beta personality puppy if you already have a couple of dogs in a family.

A port commissioner is a public official spending public money. It is a position requiring as high a level of probity and integrity as any other elected position. A get-along go-along attitude is the worst qualification we can think of for any position of public trust. Conversely, the willingness and fortitude to consistently ask hard questions and challenge received wisdom is the highest of recommendations for such a position. Over twenty plus years on the Port of Lopez Dan Post has demonstrated a heroic willingness to ask the hard questions, over and over again. He has done so in the face of scorn, mockery, and endless personal attacks.

Dan Post has also been the only Port Commissioner to consistently push to expand the mission of the port to serve the wider community. He spearheaded the effort to have the Port take over the dump, at a time when the received wisdom was that turning our facility over to San Juan Sanitation was the only viable outcome. The Port effort did not come to fruition, but it led directly to the takeover of the dump by the Lopez Solid Waste Disposal District, on which board Dan tirelessly serves. Dan pushed to improve and lease port owned lands for agriculture--providing economic opportunity and local foods, and he continues to advocate for the Port to take on the much needed project of commercial water-front access on the island.

Dan Post is a small-town hero, a tireless doer and a man of deep integrity. Please join us in supporting him for another richly deserved term as Port of Lopez Commissioner.

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?'"

The Party's Over

From my perspective, neither political party has been able to offer anything constructive on local issues like the CAOs, and personally, I know many people from both parties who have opposed the numerous fatal flaws in our CAO process. Frankly, I think most voters here are independent anyway, with tendencies certain ways depending on the issue at hand.

Nevertheless, there are die-hard partisan candidates around here who attempt to muster support from party loyalists for their positions. I suppose that is to be expected. I understand why struggling candidates would want to curry favor with the political parties, but I cannot understand the converse. Why would the political parties want to be associated with some of our public figures?

Why on earth would any party want to be associated with anyone having a connection to the Friends of the San Juans, for instance?  For that matter, why would any authentic environmentalist want to be associated with them either? Why would any political party want to be associated with our lollyscrambling, people-hating, flat-earth-society Clowncil? Most of our councillors have demonstrated on a weekly basis that they are tin-eared, scientifically illiterate, fiscally irresponsible, legally challenged, poorly educated, uncaring, haughty, and dysfunctional. When did those become values that any political party would want to embrace?

A political party would have to have a death wish to associate itself with some of our public figures.

Below is a response by Howie Rosenfeld (posted on Facebook) to a letter written by John Evans.  You decide who poses the better argument about partisanship.
_________________________________________________

John,

Please what Council rules are you referring to? The Charter only mandates non-partisan elections, not non-partisan anything else: candidates, endorsements, etc. If you are referring to the spirit of non-partisanship, while that may be a noble concept, it is not a rule. 

My race in particular was a good example of a flaw to even that noble concept. Because of my support for the CAO and my opponent’s opposition, he was generously supported by members of special interest groups and individuals who, with a few exceptions, are mostly property rights types, typically Republican leaning. You can see this from his PDC documents online. There are many developers and realtors as donors. Yes, there was no Republican endorsement but he was de facto their favored choice. He was invited to the Red Barn and I wasn’t. So in this care was the non-partisan label being used more as a fig leaf over what was more of a partisan issue?

My Democratic endorsement didn’t overcome the onslaught of anti-CAO sentiment in these District races, but it is liable to be more important in the upcoming countywide races. Are you trying to lay some groundwork to make partisan endorsements unacceptable? I don’t blame you. It is to the advantage of the Republicans, developers, Builder’s Association, etc. to do so.

Meanwhile, other Charter counties like Whatcom have politically endorsed candidates. It is not unusual and certainly not illegal.

Howie Rosenfeld

Living In A Post-CAO World

Today, we got our first look at the CAOs that were passed yesterday. They can be found at this link.

The County came out with a press release regarding Council CAO approval. As we review and analyze the final version, we will be providing our own commentary. At this stage, it appears as if many of the last-minute changes made by the Council were cosmetic. Councilwoman Pratt is quoted as saying that the CAOs represent "hard work" and "compromises," but the final CAO text appears to represent neither. It makes us wonder whether Pratt has a grasp of either concept.

Consider, as a brief example, the Reasonable Use Exception in the General Section. Aside from adding some meaningless platitudes up front about respect for private property, the Council left it alone. It's still the same old unreasonable Reasonable Use Exception that we've seen in every unacceptable draft up to this point. Nothing substantive has changed.

One of the local newspapers said the CAOs were "blessed" by the County Council yesterday. We think they have their religious imagery mixed up. The citizens of the County were cursed by it.

In a separate matter that might have implications for CAO implementation and general governance, a lawsuit was filed today to overturn the election results regarding Proposition 1 (Actually, the prayer for relief requests that all three propositions be invalidated. See comments below). Among other things, the suit seeks injunctive relief to stop the scheduled county-wide elections for three new councillors. Readers also may remember that there already is a separate lawsuit in progress regarding the behavior of Fralick, Miller, and Pratt and their secret CAO meetings. The year 2013 is shaping up to get off to a bang in what may be a year of continuous litigation for the County.

Interesting times.

Lamest of Lame-Duck Councils Passes the CAOs

Geologically hazardous and frequently flooded areas passed 6-0. All others passed 5-1, with Rich Peterson opposing. Miller couldn't resist jabbing at Peterson for his "no" vote on the General Section.

There were some important changes in today's final hearing, but we will have to wait for the final print copy to give a full report. In the meantime, here is footage of the actual vote and its effect on the County.

Crimes Against Nature Ordinance

Tomorrow, the County Council is poised to pass the Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs). Despite feverish opposition, despite horrifically bad science, despite election results, and despite lawsuits, they press onward.

When I am asked to summarize the CAOs for the uninitiated, I find it difficult to find the words to neatly convey their content and flaws. Generally speaking, though, I have come to think of them as the Crimes Against Nature Ordinances (CANOs).

Imagine a crime has been committed. The crime is "general worldwide environmental degradation" and you are a suspect. You are a suspect because you are alive, and more specifically, you have "nature" on your property. You come into contact with "nature" during the course of your activities at home, too.

The vague wording of the new ordinances ensures that nearly everything is construable as protectable nature (e.g., habitat, water courses, aquifer recharge area, wetland, buffer, etc.). Nearly any activity could be construed as environmental harm, too. That's a dangerous formula. You might think you have nothing to worry about because you consider yourself to be "green" and you live harmoniously with nature. But these new ordinances do not care about that. In fact, the more harmonious and the more integrated your life may be with nature, the greater the potential risk that you might be elevated from suspect to alleged environmental criminal.

The person who will decide whether to prosecute you for crimes against nature is René Beliveau, the Director of Planning. It will be his decision alone. He has unlimited discretion. If he decides to prosecute you, you can either admit your guilt (thou shalt not suffer a witch to live) or pay $2,300 to fight the charge. If you fight it, you will need an army of expensive consultants to prove your innocence, and the people who will sit in judgment of your expensive new evidence will be the very people who accused you of the crime in the first place: namely, Beliveau accompanied and assisted by various and sundry "experts" from the State Department of Ecology.

If "they" disagree with your experts, and you still wish to fight, then you have to proceed with Hearing Examiner and court challenges.

There are still people in this County who think I am exaggerating. There are many who think they (and/or their loved ones) will never be personally subject to the enforcement aspects of this law. You are wrong ... flat dead wrong.  And none of it, absolutely none of it, will have anything to do with environmental protection.

Every locavore should be against these ordinances. Every permaculturist. Every gardener. Every homeowner. Every Democrat, every Republican, and every Independent. There is no protected class. We are all environmental suspects under this law.

It didn't have to be this way, but that is what this Council has done to us ... to our community. None of us should forget it.

Please also read the Island Guardian editorial.

This is how a farmer in Germany got around the permit rules.  Our situation may not be so humorous.

Burning Down the House

Watch out, you might get what you're after. That's a line from the Talking Heads song Burning Down the House. That's how today's hearing on the CAOs went: a bunch of talking heads burning down the house.

In many ways, today's hearing was typical of the standard public participation events occurring throughout the CAOs. We heard from the tribes (the Tulalip). We heard from the Friends multiple times. During public access time we also heard from staff, such as Barbara Rosenkotter who is a County employee serving as the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator. In customary zoomorphic and theomorphic style, she claimed that she spoke for the salmon who are not able to speak for themselves. I wonder how many salmon know that? We heard from the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), and we heard from CSA supporters too. And oh yeah, I suppose somewhere in there was a non-affiliated person or two, but I honesty couldn't tell you.

We heard the usual environmental hysteria talk. The San Juans are unprotected. The CAOs are the weakest in the state. We have to be more careful with an island. We have to ... we have to ... we have to ... blah blah blah.

Surprisingly, there were some curious parallels between the testimony of the Friends and CSA. Both organizations feel that the CAOs are deeply flawed. The Friends, for example, say the proposed CAOs are the weakest in the state. They say the CAOs amount to no protection at all. Then in the next breath, with no concern for their self-contradiction, the Friends urge the Council to pass the CAOs. That puts the Friends in the peculiar position of openly supporting the passage of laws which they allege do nothing in terms of environmental protection.

CSA also thinks the CAOs do nothing, except place lots of restrictions on homeowners, trap them with incomprehensible formulas and rules, and potentially restrict nearly every aspect of property use.

However, the Friends apparently like the part about abusing homeowners, so they urged the Council not to kick the can down the road to the next Council. Buoyed by such bold encouragement and despite the Council's repudiation during the recent election, the Council members have convinced themselves they are on a mission from God to pass the CAOs. We heard Lovel Pratt today refute the notion that the elections were a referendum on her performance relative to the CAOs. She claimed that she lost the election because she was outspent and because we voters were confused. We heard other self-puffery and deflection from other Council members too. They flattered themselves with their knowledge and hard work on the CAOs.  The bottom line is that this Council is going to pass the CAOs come hell or high water. No more kicking the can down the road.

Kicking the can down the road? The Council fully admits that these CAOs will be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Instead of kicking the can down the road to the next Council, they're kicking the can upstairs to the GMHB.

In written testimony to the Council today, here is how CSA summed up the Council's position relative to the CAOs:

We have supported this Council’s intent not to “kick the can down the road.” However, if Council adopts a seriously defective CAO just to “get 'er done” and satisfy those who keep saying it is taking too long, YOU WILL BE “KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD” and leaving a toxic mess for our community, by elevating form over substance and failing to properly protect our critical areas, our economy, or our community. Much hard work has been done, and significant progress has been made, but this is not the time for analytical shortcuts or legislative horse-trading. The fundamental defects we have identified are not new – they are not 11th hour delaying tactics. We urge you to keep working to either cure these defects or consider the alternative approach, “A Reasonable Way Forward for the County and the CAO Process” submitted by CSA on September 10, 2012.

But in typical fashion, the County isn't listening.



P.S. Don't miss Nick Power's article in the Island Guardian because we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Their Finger Is On The Button

As we approach the final hearings on the CAO (tomorrow 10:45 am), I feel it is an appropriate time to reacquaint ourselves with our vision statement from our Comprehensive Plan. As was noted in a comment to an earlier post, the preamble says:

WE THE PEOPLE of San Juan County recognize that these rural islands are an extraordinary treasure of natural beauty and abundance, and that independence, privacy and personal freedom are values prized by islanders. Being a diverse people bound together by these shared values, we declare our commitment to work towards this vision of the San Juan Islands in 2020 A.D.

The rest is pretty good too. Read it at this link, and judge for yourself whether we are living up to our common vision.

After you do that, reflect on the miserable quality of the scientific deliberations for the CAOs. Reflect on the baseless, blind ambition to invade islanders' privacy. Reflect on what the CAO restrictions will do to our sustainability, our self-reliance, our independence, and our personal freedom.

One of my favorite Facebook pages goes by the enthusiastic but somewhat improper name of "I Fucking Love Science", which is often abbreviated IFLS. I'll leave you with some of the posters and cartoons from IFLS that have particular resonance with the CAOs.

Okay, this last one is from the Economist, not IFLS.  We may not be Greece exactly, but have you seen the County's debt or the growth of its expenditures while we have frittered away time on the CAOs?

Peterson CAO List

We have had a request to publish the Peterson list. It just so happens that we have a copy. Happy reading! (Click to enlarge each image).

And after you're done, have a look at another story about the ways our public officials try to circumvent public scrutiny ... this time involving the EPA.

One Of These Is Not Like The Others

Like the old Sesame Street game, when we look at our Council members relative to the CAOs, one of them is not like the others. We saw more evidence of that yesterday when the Council had a discussion about their upcoming consistency hearings (November 27 and December 3). But before we get into that, I have to explain one of the deliberate misconceptions perpetuated by some CAO supporters.

As most readers of the Trojan Heron know by now, the State has no formal authority over the CAOs.  However, since San Juan County opted into full participation with the GMA back in 1990, our CAOs can be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Anyone can bring a complaint before the GMHB, including the State, and it often does. The State also can take other actions to restrict the County's access to funding, at least as a theoretical possibility.

In this way, the State is able to claim that it has no role in the CAOs while simultaneously leveling threats at the County about the CAOs. There is often a gulf, however, between the demands of the State and the legal requirements of the CAOs. Therein lies much of the controversy about the CAOs. Do we follow what the law requires, or do we follow what the State says we have to do ... even when the State's threats do not appear to be consistent with the law or with the facts on the ground, insofar as the facts can be ascertained and demonstrated?

Broadly speaking, suffice to say that five of the councillors seem to be more concerned about the State's threats (or the threats of the Friends) than with the law and the facts. One councillor (Rich Peterson) is a hold out. He is more concerned about the law and facts (not to mention the citizens and the environment) rather than the threats. As a further obfuscation, some CAO supporters (e.g., Lovel Pratt) have frequently characterized their opponents as ignoring CAO law. That is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.

Peterson believes the current proposed CAOs have several fundamental and fatal legal flaws. He is unlikely to vote for the proposed CAOs without major changes. He has circulated to the Council a list of the minimum changes that he feels are necessary to gain his support.

That brings us to yesterday's Council meeting. The five pro-CAO councillors, especially since the election, are eager to pass the CAOs unanimously. Unanimous approval might convey some legal legitimacy upon the new CAOs that they wouldn't otherwise have. Probably more importantly, though, three of the existing councillors are likely to stand for election (Miller, Pratt, Stephens). After all the CAO criticism aimed at the councillors, unanimous approval of the CAOs might rehabilitate their electoral chances. During the consistency discussion yesterday, we saw the Council dealing with all these subtexts while at the same time not saying a word about them. The words we heard were about public notice and schedule, but every councillor was pondering whether the five could accept the demands of Peterson with enough time to fulfill the public notice and related administrative requirements of the law. We even saw Patty Miller deliver a rather desperate lecture to Peterson (see the discussion around the 6:39 video mark) about the information he needed to provide to the rest of the group in order to strike a deal.

Can they swallow Peterson's changes? Can they get the changes done in time for a 6-0 vote before their lame-duck terms expire, or do they press forward as is?

Only time will tell, but with respect to the CAOs, one councillor is definitely not like the others, and the Trojan Heron is very glad about that.

As a postscript, I would like to point out the paradox embodied in the argument that says we must listen to the State about the CAOs while at the same time we overwhelmingly voted for a State initiative that rejected federal law.

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #52 - Replacement Science

Is there anyone in the Pacific Northwest who doesn't know about the controversial final play in the Seattle Seahawk's victory on Monday Night Football? They certainly know about it Green Bay, where anger has given way to mockery (see replacement weatherguy video below).

It brings to mind comparisons of our "CAO science" to real science.  Like replacement NFL referees, the Council's CAO science just doesn't cut it. It's replacement science all the way. It's not real eco-toxicology. It's not real conservation biology. It's not real fate and transport. It's not real hydrology. It's not real oceanography. It's not real environmental science. It's not real anything, except real you-know-what.

It certainly appears that some, if not most, of the key CAO methodologies have been dreamt up by Planner Shireene Hale and just sort of laundered through the eco-suggestible Dr. Adamus to come out as Best Available Science (BAS) on the other end. The wants and desires of Ecology and the Friends have been tossed into that sausage maker too.

Last December/January, for example, Hale resuscitated wetland buffer efforts after Adamus' initial buffer proposal died. Hale came to the rescue and cobbled together bits and pieces of inapplicable stormwater hydrology (her husband is the Stormwater Utility Manager for the County) to create the "site-specific" water-quality buffer method we now have. After flushing (pun intended) out the initial details, Hale handed it off to Dr. Adamus, so he could take credit for it. However, even now when the Council has questions about key aspects of the methodology, such as the Mayer paper, Hale answers those questions, not Adamus.

All during the near-death experiences of Adamus' credibility over the past year, the CAO Implementation Committee was convening, and we continue to see the individuals of that group act as ongoing life support for Dr. Adamus' ideas, no matter how ridiculous. The CAO Committee members included Patty Miller, Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, Shireene Hale, Jon Cain, Pete Rose, and Colin Maycock. Committee meetings were not public, despite having three participating Council members (enough to veto Council actions). "They" say that nothing really went on in those meetings except discussions about scheduling. Then why exclude the public?

It seems suspicious that some of the actions of the Committee members appear coordinated, such as when Dr. Adamus recently attended a Council meeting via phone conference. During that meeting, Rich Peterson asked Adamus a challenging question. Adamus prevaricated, hemmed and hawed. Lovel Pratt came to the rescue by interjecting a shiny-object question for apparent distraction purposes, and Hale directed the conversation towards Pratt's shiny object, never to return to the query of Peterson.

If experience is any guide, Adamus probably needs the help. Dr. Adamus has bombed in front of the Council and Planning Commission on a regular basis. Yet, he lives on. Like Lazarus, Adamus rises from the dead with the help of his miracle-working Life-Support Committee. If the CAOs are to have a prayer, the Council needs Adamus, and in a strange turn of events, the life-givers appear to be held hostage by him at this point. During recent public meetings, Council members almost seemed to be begging with Adamus to be reasonable, as his "science" recommendations were becoming more and more extreme. We heard Council members ask, "Dr. Adamus could you accept" or "Dr. Adamus, do we really need" ... but having ridden Dr. Adamus this far, they are in no position to bargain with the monster they've created. If Dr. Adamus says BAS requires all of us to abandon our homes to create a wild frog sanctuary, by golly, the Council is going to stand behind it as BAS.

That's replacement science.

And when any of us try to get answers from our public officials for their apparently illogical support for replacement science, "they" respond much like Howie Rosenfeld recently responded to CSA (see email reply below copied to all candidates). But it is the positions and actions of Council members who prop up replacement science that deserve scrutiny, not the motivations of those who can't fathom it.


_____________________________________________________________________

From: Howard Howie Rosenfeld <howierosenfeld@centurylink.net>
Date: September 25, 2012 10:17:02 PM PDT
To: Debbie Dickinson <debbie@commonsensealliance.net>, <bjarman@centurytel.net>, Lovel Pratt <reelectlovel@gmail.com>, Rick Hughes <starwave96@gmail.com>, <Getmarc@aol.com>, Howie Rosenfeld <howie@howardrosenfeld.com>, Scott Lancaster <orcasscott@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: CSA FORUM

Debbie,

Can you please explain why in God’s name would I want to participate? It sounds like I’m being invited to my own roasting. The contributors to my opponent and Lovel’s are a who’s who of CSA members. You yourself are listed as an assistant. What kind of Fair and Balanced format does CSA have in mind? My position on the CAO is already well known. CSA’s position is well known. What’s the point?

Howie


On 9/25/12 5:39 PM, "Debbie Dickinson" <debbie@commonsensealliance.net> wrote:

To all Candidates,

CSA will be having a Candidate forum on Oct 20th at the Middle School Commons. The Title will be “Council Candidates and the CAO”

The meeting is scheduled to start at 12:00 and continue until 2:00 Saturday afternoon.

Looking forward to seeing you,

        Deborah
      CSA Assistant
      360-298-1558
      debbie@commonsensealliance.net

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #47 - Incompetence & Bias

After watching the Council session yesterday, the conclusion that many have drawn is that our Council just doesn't get it.

At one point yesterday, Council Chair Miller even admitted that BAS was nothing more than "group-think," but it's clear they are going to follow it anyway ... even though they don't really even know what that means. They rely on Dr. Adamus to tell them. The Council voted numerous times yesterday to simply roll over and agree to virtually everything Dr. Adamus said. Fralick, Pratt, and Miller were particularly active in driving the out-of-control CAO bus, with Rich Peterson offering periodic objections that were ignored. As usual, Rosenfeld and Stephens were just along for the ride offered by Fralick, Pratt, and Miller.

At this point, the Council has come to identify so heavily with Dr. Adamus' scientific prowess that they believe "Adamus=BAS." Adamus begins every sentence with "According to Science," and I get the impression that Adamus could say, "According to Science, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the Council would believe it were BAS.

Yesterday confirmed for many that we have extremists for Council members serving as acolytes for a charlatan "scientist" propped up by the lunatic fringe of Ecology. The Council never considers or makes reference to any comments or views except those expressed by Shireene Hale, Adamus, and on the margins, Deputy Prosecutor Cain. Cain has reduced his role to sitting next to Shireene Hale and acting like a pull-string doll, repeatedly saying that if the Council departs from "science" they will have to explain why. The Council interprets this to mean that they either follow whatever Adamus says or else explain themselves, which they are loathe to do. The entire show is a sycophantic corruption of process and science that has become the standard MO for this confederacy of dunces running our County.

The Planning Commission is largely ignored, community groups like the Common Sense Alliance are totally ignored, and the overwhelming outpouring of individual citizen comments are ignored. I would think that even a modicum of respect for the public process would cause our Council to at least recognize that public input has been received; and to comment as to why it is not being considered. But no. If recognized at all (as in a previous meeting on August 28), the only stakeholder groups mentioned are the Friends, Futurewise, and Ecology. The rest of us don't exist.

But I guess that's the real point. We don't exist. Tolerated for our legally-required 3-minutes of public testimony, they'd prefer that we all go away.

Yesterday, the Common Sense Alliance sent out a press release with their view of the situation and a set of recommendations. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than the views of our Council.

The Common Sense Alliance (CSA), a San Juan County-based community organization focused on environmental protection, community health, and economic vitality, yesterday submitted to the County Council its urgent recommendation that the County abandon its current proposed changes to our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), because the proposal is scientifically and legally indefensible, and that the County instead affirm our existing CAO regulatory scheme, improve its enforcement, and develop a professional data collection and monitoring program.

The CSA recommendations constitute a sensible, compliant, and prudent way forward for our County, our environment, our economy, and our people. We recognize the success of the substantial public and private efforts by our citizens to protect our ecosystem. We acknowledge the significant testimony and factual evidence of our environment's health, while accepting that areas of uncertainty remain which may be clarified over time by monitoring of appropriate scale and quality.

The question that came to the minds of most of us as this process unfolded is “What is the problem”? To date, we have seen no scientifically supportable answer. Indeed, a few weeks ago, an eminent federal scientist testified before Council that our fish and wildlife habitat was “spectacular,” and that she could not think of anything that we were doing wrong. CSA agrees. Oft-repeated alarmist claims that humans in San Juan County are directly responsible for material harm to salmonids and orcas have no creditable scientific underpinning, and the Council should recognize that those claims no more warrant extensive, expensive, and burdensome new CAO regulations than the Department of Ecology’s oft-repeated claim that the volume of toxics washing into Puget Sound from stormwater was equivalent to an Exxon Valdez oil spill every two years (recently retracted), or Ecology’s claims that fish kills in Hood Canal are the fault of humans (retracted just this week).

CSA urges the Council instead to recognize that the current process is irredeemably tainted, the existing product is fatally flawed, and that it is time to move ahead to obtain the information we need for rational rules for the protection of our environment.

We invite you to review our recommendations at this link, and to urge Council to pursue them.

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #20 - Politician's Syllogism

At the combined hearing for Wetland and Fish & Wildlife CAOs this past Tuesday, Councilman Howie Rosenfeld said that he didn't have sympathy for citizens who previously had asked for a site-specific buffer procedure but who now complain that the latest County buffer method is too complicated. Forgive me, but if the County had ever developed a site-specific buffer procedure, maybe there would be less need to complain. As it is, we've seen neither hide nor hair of a site-specific method.

Howie is suffering from politician's logic.

The first buffer proposal developed by the County was one-size-fits-all.
The current proposal is not the first proposal.
Therefore, the current proposal must be site-specific.

Other examples of this mode of thinking include:

Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.
All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

The truth is that neither the first nor the second County proposal involved any evaluation of site-specific factors related to risk, particularly evaluation of the concentrations of presumed site-specific "contaminants." Without that, no mitigation, regardless of the label "site specific," can be considered to have been tailored to a site-specific source. It is the identification of actual on-site sources and quantification of on-site contaminant concentrations that allows for site-specific mitigation. The County has consistently rejected pleas for such an approach, insisting instead that we rely on baseless generalized assumptions about the presence of contamination on each inhabited parcel, at de manifestis levels that require presumptive and pointlessly-complex mitigation.

The County first proposed that we should all wear the same thick coat of armor. Now, they're proposing that we should each wear our own clown costume with its own special size and shape, which they insist is really a custom-tailored suit. However, being different from one another doesn't imply being tailored to our situation, but that point is apparently lost on Howie and probably others too. Howie's comments only serve to spotlight how our misguided County proves the Anna Karenina principle: there are many ways to get it wrong, but only one elusive way to get it right.

A proper site-specific approach still eludes our County, and maybe our readers can point that out to Howie if they see him around Town. Using politician's logic, maybe he's over at the Friday Harbor dog park playing fetch with his cat.

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