What's a Puppet Master to Do?

Stephanie Buffum is learning that the life of puppet master isn't the life of leisure that it's cracked up to be ... what with all the County employees needing constant TLC to advance the Friends agenda from the inside. It's work rigging public meetings.

Below is yet another email between Stephanie Buffum of the Friends and Barbara Rosenkotter, Salmon Recovery Lead for our County. Recall that Buffum and Rosenkotter have a special relationship (aka Stephanie Rosenkotter), even sharing rants where they liken themselves to Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and MLK.

In the email below, Buffum is informing Rosenkotter of her selection to run an upcoming County SMP meeting (now make it so Barbara). Buffum's preferred speaker is unavailable, so she is resigned to the inevitability of having to make do with Colin Maycock who is, after all, on "our team" as Buffum puts it. Remember, Colin Maycock is nominally in charge of the County SMP update, but it doesn't seem like he's de facto in charge from the looks of this email.

Why don't we stop pretending and just include the Friends on the County organizational chart as the County Department of Natural Resources, which has been an ambition of Stephanie Buffum's for years anyway. The Friends already have a more direct line of authority to some staff than either the Council or the Administrator.

Note: We don't know who "Tim" and "Bob" are referring to in the email below, but we suspect Bob Fritzen of Ecology. There are several possibilities for Tim, including Tim Beechie of NOAA, Tim Strickler of the PSP, or Tim Quinn of WDFW/PSP ... maybe even Tim Hyatt of the Skagit River Cooperative or Tim Trohimovich of Futurewise ... or Tim Gates of the Washington Department of Commerce. But we admit that we don't know, but maybe one of you does.

From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:29 PM
To: Barbara Rosenkotter
Subject: Feb 24 - SMP speaker

Hi Barbara,

I spoke with Tim in detail on Wed. He is sympathetic and overwhelmed with his new position which now also includes Watershed Lead for Thurston County.

After much discussion, we determined that Colin would be the best person, with Bob being back up in the back of the room. I saw Colin’s most recent SMP presentation to the county council and with some minor tweaks to make it fit 15 minutes I am confident that it would be fine. Especially if Bob is in the room as back up for questions. Since this is only an SMP appetizer I think this will work fine with our limited timeline.   Tim was going to be talking with Colin yesterday at the SMP coordination meeting for planners in Olympia. I asked if he would provide some extra tlc to Colin. He may not be Tim, but he’s on our team and we need to do what we can to make the most out of his skill set. I would be happy to meet with him and refine his presentation with him. He’s going to have to improve his public speaking and there’s no time like the present.  

So, it seems like it may make the most sense for you to approach Colin and Bob.  I am getting prepared for our BIG meeting on Monday and a bit stressed for time this next week.

I look forward to meeting on Monday 2/14 at your office to refine the agenda.

Stephanie Buffum Field

FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS

Executive Director

360. 378.2319 office

360.472.0404 cell

Stephanie@sanjuans.org

Data by the Back Door

We know the County is looking for an ecological "smoking gun" that can be used against all of us for the CAOs and SMP. We know the Friends have a propensity for "compiling data" on individual citizens (to put it mildly) so they can persecute them. If you're interested in eco-framing everyone in the County using bad ecological data, who ya gonna call?

Below are a series of emails regarding County shoreline data. It mentions the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) update, but the same information is being used for the Fish & Wildlife Habitat CAO. These and other emails reveal the Friends and their friends as some of the puppet masters of County data. Data enters the County GIS/data system with the deliberate intent to avoid any public participation or independent third-party review.

The parties involved in the emails below are Stephanie Buffum and Tina Whitman of the Friends; Amanda Azous, Land Bank Commissioner and one of the consultant authors of the County's Best Available Science (BAS) synthesis; and the cc's include Linda Lyshall, Marine Resources Committee (MRC) Coordinator; Steve Revella, MRC Chair; and Jose Carrasquero, another BAS and SMP consultant from Herrera. Colin Maycock is the County planner in charge of the SMP update.

As Tina Whitman says ... fyi ...
___________________________________________________

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Linda Lyshall; 'Steve Revella'
Subject: FW: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

fyi

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:04 AM
To: 'Amanda Azous'
Cc: 'Stephanie Buffum'; 'mrc@sanjuanco.com'
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Thanks Amanda,

I totally agree that a face to face meeting is the best tool to help all of us gain a better understanding of what potential changes could be made, using existing data, to address concerns of the mrc, fsj and the tac and improve our support of the inventorty document.

I appreciate your willingness to do this.

-tina

From: Amanda Azous [mailto:aazous@herrerainc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Tina Whitman
Cc: Stephanie Buffum; mrc@sanjuanco.com
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hi Tina,

I am working on making this meeting happen outside of the County’s public participation plan, which means it must be a private meeting and not on the County’s budget. I think that is the only way to get a constructive dialogue going. I hope to know within the next few days if Herrera can do this, and have the meeting on San Juan Island (I think that would be best). I would really like to resolve these important issues or at least all leave with a better understanding of why certain decisions were made and what should be fixed where needed. I think we all want the same thing which is for the County to be able to move forward to update its SMP and prevent further degradation of our County’s shoreline and nearshore environment. I don’t have Steve Revella’s email but have copied the general MRC email.

Thank-you for your patience in this matter,

Amanda

AMANDA AZOUS

Science Associate

direct 206.787.8251 | cell 206.920.8044 | main 206.441.9080

2200 Sixth Avenue Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121

Find Herrera online at: www.herrerainc.com

This electronic transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) named.  If you have received this message in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and please notify me by reply electronic mail.  Thank you.

SEATTLE, WA | PORTLAND, OR | MISSOULA, MT | OLYMPIA, WA | WINTHROP, WA | GUANGZHOU, CHINA

From: Tina Whitman [mailto:tina@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:56 AM
To: 'Colin Maycock'; 'Stephanie Buffum'; Amanda Azous; Jose Carrasquero
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Thanks colin,

From my perspective, it would be a gathering of the SMP team (consultants, staff and your tac), with representatives (small number of for efficiency) from the MRC, the lead entity, and FSJ (these groups selected for their familiarity with local data sets and ongoing concerns over current inventory framework), to discuss specific concerns over current integration of existing shoreline data sets, with a goal towards improving everyone’s understanding of the current inventory’s analytical approach and improving representation of existing data into the inventory to end up with a document that better supports next phases of the SMP.

From my own review of the document, as well as communication with tac, salmon recovery and other MRC members, I believe that face to face communication and discussion could help facilitate some changes to the inventory that would make those of us most familiar with local shoreline data sets and their ability to inform management of key processes, species and habitats much more comfortable moving forward. 

As you are aware, the formal public comment process doesn’t support the kind of interactive conversation we feel would be most productive; however, it has been the only tool available to date.

Thanks.  I look forward to working with you all.

Regard

tina

From: Colin Maycock [mailto:Colinm@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Stephanie Buffum; Amanda Azous; Tina Whitman; Jose Carrasquero
Subject: RE: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hey There,

Before going any further, what exactly are you trying to achieve with this proposed public meeting? Is there a specific result you expect?

Respectfully,

Colin

Colin Maycock, AICP

Planner IV

San Juan County Community Development and Planning

PO Box 947, Friday Harbor, WA

98250

Phone: 360-370-7573

Email: colinm@sanjuanco.com

From: Stephanie Buffum [mailto:stephanie@sanjuans.org]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 4:56 PM
To: 'Amanda Azous'; 'Tina Whitman'; 'Jose Carrasquero'; Colin Maycock
Subject: SMP San Juan data stakeholder meeting

Hi Amanda, et all:

I think there is a much larger group of people besides ourselves that would like time in front of the consultants so that we can be better informed about the application of local data in the SMP. These groups include: the MRC, the Salmon Lead Entity, members of the SMP technical review team, the PSP/San Juan Initiative, Skagit Systems Cooperative and Kurt Fresh. 

We believe that such a meeting is essential in ensuring we have a credible SMP Characterization Report. We believe that this meeting should be in San Juan County, but since this is an SMP product and DOE is a part of this process,  Padilla Bay may be a good travel neutral location for all interested parties.

I would be willing to look into the availability of the facility if we can get agreement that this meeting is necessary for the good of the order. 

Stephanie

Stephanie Buffum Field

Executive Director

FRIENDS OF THE SAN JUANS

POB 1344 Friday Harbor, WA  98250

360. 378.2319 office

360.472.0404 cell

Stephanie@sanjuans.org

Smoking Gunners

Recently, the Trojan Heron has been more deeply investigating the many ways that our local government uses biased, un-transparent, and corrupt data against us. We, at the Trojan Heron, feel there is no more important issue in the County than the integrity of the technical data used for our public policy and other government actions. Simply put, there are people in our State and local government with an agenda and they control and manipulate data to advance that agenda. They are looking for the "smoking gun" to eco-frame all of us. They don't care about data quality, or integrity, or independence.  If data or a story can be used in any way to incriminate people, it must be used. The activities of the smoking gunners involves the CAOs, the stormwater program, grant-deliverables, and our citizen committees.

Despite what many of us may believe, too often the "political" divisions in this County are not really "left versus right" or "rich versus poor." Instead, we are divided between the "smoking gunners" who fabricate and believe any and all manner of eco-incriminating evidence (no matter how poor the quality), and the rest of us who feel that data should be evaluated and independently validated before it is believed.

The Trojan Heron is now going to focus on the smoking gunners and how they control and manipulate nearly every aspect of County data, and thereby control much of what the County does as a result.  The smoking gunners include Council members, County staff, and state officials.

The term "smoking gun" dates from 2010 when the County began to use that term to characterize the real motivation behind various County initiatives, but the smoking gunners have been with us for a lot longer than that. They are now entrenched everywhere, and we must root them out and get rid of them. They are working against the public and the public good.

From: Mary Knackstedt [mailto:maryk@co.san-juan.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Linda Lyshall; Vicki Heater; Barbara Rosenkotter; Kit Rawson [krawson@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov]; windrope amy [awindrope@yahoo.com]; Ed Hale; Brian Rader;susankey212@gmail.com; Patty Miller
Cc: Shireene Hale
Subject: EPA grant proposal for your review

Here's what I've done so far for the proposal with input and help from many of you. It's been a rapidly moving target over the past week, which has been hard to keep up with, but I think it's coming along though it has some rough patches.  Please look this over and provide comments by next tuesday or earlier if you can manage it.  Linda, please send it along to your friend at EPA.

Here's some pieces (some new) that need fleshing out, I'm sure you'll find more:

NEW--Vicki suggested a really great idea to focus team effort/coordinated technical assistance program (modeled after Kitsap Co) with landowners in the pilot areas receiving assistance from the CD and County (Brian for pollution prevention, especially business owners in Eastsound and construction sites) and the on-site septic system specialist from the health dept.  She also suggested pursuing long term sustainable funding through development of a Clean Water district. She is going to add this section.  I tried to do a quick scan to add this in a few sections, but need to go through the whole proposal methodically, especially the project plan and proposal sections after she completes this piece so that it fits.

Monitoring--I hesitate to ask for much funding for monitoring because EPA is very picky about funding monitoring and most of what we are doing is under development so still hazy.  I think we could mention the need to connect WQ monitoring with the shoreline development data and the shore form data that we'll have from FSJs during this time period and any connections to impacts to habitats and biota along with the nifty new tools coming from the state and PSNERP. So the emphasis in this proposal is on connecting the dots and using those insights to tell the story to landowners and decision makers locally. inform our project and also to share in a transboundary workshop.  Instead of asking for funds for monitoring equipment (which I think would weaken this proposal).  I've built in a monitoring coordinator into the budget and some of Ed's time which could free up funds for equipment from county funds.  Ed also suggested that we ask for funds to develop the QA for the stormwater monitoring program. Anyway, this part of the proposal needs work and I'd really appreciate your input to acheive the right balance and stay within the realm of feasibility.  Espcially if we want to use some of the PW utilities fees for match--I did not build that into the budget, yet cuz not sure how it would fit.

Budget--I've built in funding for county staff time on this and vacilate from angsting over it being too much and then too little and still trying to keep it under a million bucks and within our match. The budget needs input, detail and work.  Milene is looking it over, intending to charge indirect so that will add a fair amount. We need more detail for the sections dealing with the constructed wetland.  This is over half the money for the entire project so is important.

Partners--Eastsound Planning and Review Committee wants to partner.  Patty Miller emphasized the need to show the smoking gun, tell the story and involve stakeholders as we dev. the program in the pilot areas.The natural resources dept. of the Samish Tribe has done a lot of stormwater monitoring in Fidalgo Bay and would like to provide guidance for the project, also it looks like we are going to be a partner on the Green Shores proposal so I added that.

Emerging threats  I just got some information about low spawning in local herring pops which are not being seen in other areas of PS which I haven't had the chance to read yet, but may help build the case in the emerging threats section.

Too long!  The page limit for the proposal is 12 pages.  So we're already too long.  There are repetitive, long winded sections, so please let me know where to cut since we need to add other more essential information.

Haven't done the logic model yet.