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.

Campaign Participation by County Employees

If you've ever worked for the federal government, you might be familiar with the Hatch Act. It is the law that governs the participation of federal employees in elections. The Hatch Act only applies to federal employees, not state and municipal employees. Nevertheless, it's interesting to make note of the Hatch Act rules and compare them to the involvement of County employees in our local elections.

Most of the prohibitions affecting federal employees and campaigns come into effect only for partisan elections. Almost any kind of participation in nonpartisan elections is allowable. But the Hatch Act acknowledges that some elections can be nonpartisan in name only. For example, the federal employee guide to the Hatch Act says the following about nonpartisan elections being transformed into partisan elections:

Q. Can a nonpartisan election be transformed into a partisan election?
A. Yes. If state or local law mandates a nonpartisan ballot for a particular local office, there will be a presumption that the election for that office is nonpartisan. If evidence is presented, however, that shows that partisan politics actually enter the campaigns of the candidates, e.g., the [candidate] solicits the endorsement of a partisan group, advertises the endorsement of a political party, or uses the party's resources to further her campaign effort, the nonpartisan election can be transformed into a partisan one in violation of the Hatch Act. 

Since they solicited partisan endorsement, Byers, Pratt, and Stephens seem to have transformed our nonpartisan elections into partisan ones according to the standards of the Hatch Act. It's especially ironic since, if successful, they will take an oath of office to uphold the Charter, including its nonpartisan provisions.

Good thing the Hatch Act doesn't apply to Barbara Rosenkotter either (Salmon Recovery Lead for our Planning Department), since Rosenkotter is a County employee involved in the Byers campaign. Under the federal system, she might be in an especially tight spot given her role as Campaign Treasurer for Byers. The federal employee guide to the Hatch Act says:

Q. May an employee serve as the treasurer of a campaign?
A. Yes, an employee may serve as treasurer to the extent of preparing and filing campaign finance reports and paying campaign expenses. The employee would be prohibited from personally soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions. 

The latest tally of campaign fundraising puts the Byers powerhouse at a total of $20,477. The top contributors to Byers are Janet Alderton of the Friends and her husband at $900 each. They also are the top contributors to Pratt at $1,800 each (Pratt has raised $18,552). Alderton and her husband have now dished out $5,400 for the Byers and Pratt campaigns combined.

The Byers and Pratt campaigns are a world unto themselves. No other campaign has the money and network that these two campaigns have. If you believe in the 1% versus the 99%, and if you map the donors and committee members of Pratt/Byers campaigns, you end up with a group that is about 150 people in size ... roughly 1% of our little county. That 1% seems to be comprised inordinately of people (and their related organizational interests) who benefit from free flowing public funding. Including many who, as the saying goes, vote for their living rather than work for their living.

For all the talk of diversity coming out of the Byers campaign especially, I wonder how many fisherman, waitresses, and construction workers are among her supporters ... probably about as many as are on our County citizen advisory committees.

An Assortment of County Strangeness

What would a day in San Juan County be like without something peculiar happening in local government. We got a look at the agenda for the Marine Resource Committee (MRC) for this week, and it contains the following item:

Salmon Recovery Council Appointment Letter
Approval of letter supporting Jamie Stephens appointment, Barbara Rosenkotter

Approval? The MRC is going to approve the County Council's decision to appoint the County Council Chair to the Salmon Recovery Council? Why cannot the MRC seem to grasp that they serve at the pleasure of the County Council, not the other way around? The MRC does not approve anything with respect to the County Council, and their perpetual confusion on that matter does not inspire confidence.

And speaking of Barbara Rosenkotter, who also serves as Lisa Byers' Campaign Treasurer, the latest tallies for the campaigns show that the Byers and Pratt campaigns continue to far outpace all other campaigns in fundraising, having raised $16,577 and $16,979 respectively. Janet Alderton of the Friends continues to be the largest donor to both campaigns. In combination with her husband, Alderton has donated $4,500 to the Byers and Pratt campaigns, which is more than any other candidate has raised in total contributions except for Jamie Stephens.

In other news, the search is on for a new County Manager, and word is that the Council will favor local candidates. We wonder how long before Dick Grout's name surfaces again. Grout was the Planning Director here in the County in the late 80's and early 90's. In particular, he was Planning Director when the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted to fully opt-in to the Growth Management Act, and reports are that Grout was influential in persuading the BOCC to take that fateful decision. After leaving the County in the early 90's, Grout became the head of the Bellingham Field Office for the Department of Ecology.

When Pete Rose was selected as County Administrator back in 2006, Grout was mysteriously included in the finalist group of County Administrator candidates without seemingly having gone through the rest of the selection process with the other three finalist candidates. Despite the apparent funny business, Rose was selected over Grout back then.

Nevertheless, Grout maintains a residence in the islands and is part of Byers' Campaign Committee to boot. Pratt and Byers were both part of the Citizen Input Committee for the hiring of the County Administrator back in 2006 too. They are both very familiar with Grout.

There are some other peculiar things worth mentioning, but we'll save commentary about them for another time. For instance, why is the "Winter Council" going along with the Community Conversation idea? What is the urgency to get it done during their term -- during election season? And has anyone seen the governance paper by Bob Jean? Also, will you be attending the County's CAO workshops?

I will leave you with some gallows humor jokes going around these islands regarding the Friends, especially after their B&B permit meddling came to light.

Question:  Why did the Friend cross the road?
Answer :   To take a photo of your property.

Question:  How many Friends does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Answer:   They don't screw in lightbulbs, they screw you at the Hearing Examiner.

Election Spending Through The Roof -- Already

Reports from the Public Disclosure Commission show that so far Lovel Pratt has taken in cash contributions of $9,910. But even she is trailing candidate Lisa Byers from Orcas who has taken in a total of $11,902. The largest individual donor for both Pratt and Byers is Janet Alderton, Board member of the Friends of the San Juans.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Click to enlarge

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #36 - The Narrative

As a preface to this post, I want to emphasize that, despite what others may think, I consider myself an environmentalist. I always have, and I always will. However, I realize that I just don't fit in with those who wear it on their deceptive unscientific sleeves.

The previous post explained how the environmental movement has failed to evolve, and on a national basis, the movement no longer enjoys the broad-based support that it once did. Surveys by The Nature Conservancy show that most people in America now consider environmentalists to be extremists. What the environmental movement currently lacks in broad appeal, it tries to make up for with stridency. It's as if all the reasonable-sounding environmentalists have been boiled off, leaving a demi glace eco-reduction that is foul-tasting and stale, instead of delicious.

And those remaining in the pure eco-residue have a narrative for explaining what has happened to them, and it usually involves claims of betrayal, Koch-brother inspired conspiracies, dirty-tricks, and general blindness on the part of non-believers who are not smart or enlightened enough to foresee the imminent ecosystem collapse.

Cross the Friends or their friends and you immediately become labeled in this County. You're "street noise," "unethical," "unprofessional," "Republican," "deluded," "a property rights activist," or any number of similar names used to rally the traditional reactionary hatreds in our community. For the environmental purists in our midsts, it isn't about science or community, it's about winning. Labels are part of the winning strategy of marginalization. Labels are, after all, a variety of thought-terminating cliche too. It's what a person does when they want to quell their own cognitive dissonance and end debate, instead of make a point.

When challenged, the narrative of modern environmentalism falls back on dubious claims of pervasive ecosystem harm that ("they" say) is the inevitable consequence of human existence. The narrative makes arcane arguments about carrying capacity, population growth, and societal collapse. It's long on gloomy predictions and short on facts. The solution narrative is always the same: more and more intrusive government control and coordination needed to avert the ecological version of end times.

We've seen two examples of the eco-noise narrative stoking the enviro-disaster furnace over the past week. One is a letter in the famously sympathetic sanjuanislander.com from Janet Alderton, Friends Board member. The other is an abstruse eco-planning tome about carrying capacity from Orcas.

Janet Alderton's letter is typically quaint for its absurdity. It focuses on a study completed two years ago as if it's breaking news. It repeats unfounded claims that she has made ad nauseum of ubiquitous pesticide pollution in our waters, despite such claims being dismissed by both Ecology and highly-qualified eco-toxicologists. Nevertheless, Janet is driven to distraction by the insecticide used to control carpenter ants, and she writes as if the pesticide and the Common Sense Alliance are in cahoots to destroy our planet. As inevitable as another Elvis sighting, in the months and years to come, we'll probably see more preachy "breaking news" from Janet that repeats tired, discredited claims about lethal carpenter-ant pesticide contamination.

And speaking of preachy, when youth (15 to 18) are asked in focus groups what an "environmentalist" looks like to them, the image they conjure up is that of a woman or girl. She wears lots of green and is wealthy and preachy. The word "preachy" shows up over and over again in focus groups. When young people are asked about this archetypical environmentalist, they say that she is nice enough, but they don't want to socialize with her.

The big environmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy realize that's a problem because national demographics are seismically shifting. The conservation movement always has been rich and white, but the country continues to be less so every day.

The message is that if the leaders of the environmental movement continue to look and behave like Janet Alderton, Stephanie Buffum (the ex Mrs Suckling), Lovel Pratt, or Shireene Hale, its long-term outlook is not good.

In the short-term, however, it is the eco-preachers that have cornered us, and it is our outlook that isn't very good. The CAOs have been imbued with "the narrative" and that makes us subject to their preachy, false, and foul-tasting requirements.

Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #17 - Deception Formula

Ever seen the movie Mars Attacks? One of its more memorable lines was:

Yak Yak. Don't run. We are your Friends.

That's the line repeated by the Martians as they blow earthlings to bits. It's part of a formula that should be familiar to residents of San Juan County because it has been used against us so often. It's the formula for the CAOs, and it's the formula used by the Friends.

Let's look at the deception formula in action by examining some recent articles by Janet Alderton, Board member of the Friends. Janet has deceptive editorials recently published here and here (same editorial in two places, neither of which mentions she is with the Friends). Her editorial starts out with the premise that CAO concerns are overblown. For example, here is the opening:

Some organizations have spread fear about what you will be able to do with your property under the proposed critical areas ordinance. In reality, the proposed buffers will generally be the same or smaller than current wetland buffers.

That is followed by a list of cherry-picked half-truths from the text of the CAOs, all meant to persuade us that we'll be much more free under the new restrictive CAOs than now. If you survive Janet's stream-of-consciousness prose, you arrive at the real message at the end:

Buffers should be undisturbed areas with native vegetation. But the numerous activities permitted in buffers by the proposed CAO update interfere with buffer function and fail to protect our valuable critical areas.

If you're suffering from cognitive dissonance after reading her article completely, you're not alone. Janet starts out by implying we have nothing to fear; then lauds the flexibility of the new CAOs; then she concludes by saying that the new CAOs are not strict enough. The final bit is the real message. She doesn't feel we should have any choices or freedoms under the CAOs, no matter how illusory, and she's upset at even the prospect that we might have any.

In summary, here's the three-step deceptive communication formula:

1. Say that we have nothing to worry about.
2. Blather on about how good we have it ... blah blah blah ... choice choice choice ... shiny object ... blah blah blah.
3. Conclude with a threat, stating that we're getting off easy, and scold us that the prospective CAOs could be, and should be, even more restrictive than they already are.

Fundamentally, it is an incoherent message, like the CAOs themselves. And considering the entire message in context, it sounds like we have a lot to worry about.

With Friends (and CAOs) like these, who needs Martians?

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #9 - Gamesmanship

Will you please tie my shoes? That was the question posed to several people during a research experiment on the "art" of persuasion. Here's what they found:

You start by asking for something outrageous; when that's turned down, you then ask for something reasonable. A boss may ask an employee to work weekends for a whole year, for example, and when that request gets turned down, the manager might ask for a report to be turned in by Friday. The outrageous request reframes the real request to make it sound reasonable.

And so it goes with buffers in the San Juan County CAO. During various forums, there has been talk of buffers as large as 800 feet. Then, the Planning Commission draft of the CAOs had buffers up to 260 feet. These "outrageous" requests were tweaked to something more "reasonable"... 230 feet. Nevertheless, we still hear the Friends wanting more from buffers. Janet Alderton ended her most recent CAO paean with the un-paean-like punchline:

But the numerous activities permitted in buffers by the proposed Critical Area Ordinance update interfere with buffer function and fail to protect our valuable Critical Areas.

In other words, consider yourselves lucky, peasants, that you're getting any use of your land at all. You should feel grateful! Never mind that no one can seem to adequately quantity or explain what "buffer function" actually means anyway.

The difficulty with all this "reasonableness" is that the purpose of buffers has been completely lost amidst the bazaar haggling over their size. We don't even know what we're haggling over anymore. What are buffers for? To reduce pollution? What pollution? Paraphrasing Jerry Maguire, show me the pollution. Show me the pollution!

Without de manifestis levels of pollution, there is no need for a remedy. Without a need for a remedy, there is no need for pollution-removing buffers, assuming buffers work at all as a primary pollutant remedy, and it's not clear that they do. It turns out that our own County consultant, Dr. Adamus, wasn't even able to describe how buffers work exactly. He declined to explain, for example, the statistics in the Mayer paper on pollutant removal, which formed the basis for the buffer calculator he developed.

We can land a plutonium-powered rover on Mars using a crazy sky-crane contraption and nail the landing within a couple of miles of the target, but we can't get our highly-compensated wetland consultant to explain buffer statistics in the paper he used for our buffer design.

Does that sound reasonable?

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.

Friends Board Member Wants Ag Restrictions

No Ag, no septic, no view.  Why doesn't she just say, "No people"? This is a letter from Janet Alderton, a Friends Board member who is considered a technical expert on the CAOs by CDPD. She's also one of our most outspoken citizens about the CAOs.

Outspoken? ... hmmm ... that doesn't quite capture the frequency and tone of her comments from my perspective.  Abundantly outspoken? ... artless perhaps? ... relentless? As always, you decide. However, if you added up Janet Alderton's emails (word count especially), transmitted articles, private meetings with staffers, technical meetings with government staffers, comments during citizen access time, and hearings testimony, I doubt there is any other citizen who can match her volume of CAO-related comments. There is probably no other citizen who has had freer access to the CAO process.

Never was so much said by so few, it seems, and I think it suggests that some of us are more equal than others.
_____________________________________________________
From: Janet Alderton [mailto:jmalderton@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Lovel Pratt; Rich Peterson; Howard Rosenfeld; Richard Fralick; Patty Miller; Jamie Stephens
Subject: Fish&Wildlife CAO draft May 1, 2012

May 15, 2012

Dear County Councilors & Planning Commissioners,

A "High Risk" approach requires monitoring of both water quality and habitat components to assure "no net loss" of Critical Area functions and values. The May 1, 2012 draft of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) component of the Critical Areas Ordinance update moves beyond a "Moderate Risk" approach in the following key areas.

1. On page 24 of 36, Table 3.10 f. permits new and expanded agricultural activities in critical areas, the first 50 feet of the buffer closest to the water, and in the remainder of the buffer. There is no special consideration given to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (Table 3.12) or to habitats of local importance (Table 3.13). Best Management Practices must be used, but these practices do not protect locally important habitats and the species that live within these habitats. The Voluntary Stewardship Program for agriculture requires water quality monitoring, but Table 3.10 f. requires no monitoring for water quality. 

Limited new and expanded agricultural activities might be permitted in the outer portion of a buffer (outside of the first 50 feet closest to the water) for Critical Areas without the species listed in Table 3.12 and for Critical Areas that do not contain the habitats listed in Table 3.13. Water quality monitoring should be required as it is by the Voluntary Stewardship Program.

2. On page 26 of 36, Table 3.10 r. Components of on-site sewage systems should be permitted only in the outer 25% of the buffer (not in the entire buffer), and annual testing of the septic system should be required and enforced. 

3. On page 27 of 36, #6, the variance for a "view," is vague and will allow a building to be sited anywhere on a parcel. #7 is specific for a 90-degree view from the shoreline. #6 should be removed from this draft ordinance. Mitigation should be required for a variance in a Critical Area as it is required for the Reasonable Use Exception.

Thank-you,

Janet Alderton
PO Box 352
Deer Harbor, WA
98243
360-376-3905

Living Between Their Lines

Fortunately, something that did NOT make it's way into the draft version of the wetlands CAO (just barely) was a requirement for permanently demarcating buffers with signs. Excerpts from some of the emails discussing signs are shown below, and I've included a photo of a CAO sign from Whatcom County.

While we were able to avoid signs in our draft wetlands CAO for now, we nevertheless know where some community members want to take this County.

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign? We might as well be a lifelike display at Disneyland or a Potemkin village.
__________________________________________________

--- On Mon, 1/23/12, Scott Rozenbaum <rozewood@rockisland.com> wrote: From: Scott Rozenbaum <rozewood@rockisland.com> Subject: Re: permanent markers for buffer boundaries To: "Paul Adamus" <adamus7@comcast.net> Cc: "Janice Biletnikoff" <janiceb@sanjuanco.com>, "Ed Kilduff" <ed.kilduff@me.com>, "Janet Alderton" <jmalderton@yahoo.com>, "Shireene Hale" <shireeneh@sanjuanco.com>, "Dan Nickel" <DNickel@watershedco.com>, "Rachel Dietzman" <racheld@sjcpublicworks.org>, "Erik (ECY)Stockdale" <ESTO461@ECY.WA.GOV>, "Anderson Paul (ECY NWRO SEA)" <paan461@ECY.WA.GOV>, "Belluomini Steve" <sbelluomini@yahoo.com>, "TomHruby" <thru461@ECY.WA.GOV> Date: Monday, January 23, 2012, 3:29 PM I was off on the prices of the signage. See excerpt below from King County Wetland regs: Wetland Not in Tract Wetland signs and fences may be required by the department. Sign and fence Requirements The signs must be placed at the edge of the required buffer, between the buffer and the 15-foot BSBL. The spacing of the signs will be determined during the review of the development proposal. Generally signs are spaced every 50 feet to 150 feet and stationed in a prominent location (i.e. at the closest point to the proposed development). Signs may be attached to a post or fence. Wetland Areas Boundary signs are available from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for $2.50. A Stream Sign Installation Detail is available from DDES. Scott On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Paul Adamus wrote: How about "permanent and obvious..." ?   More than just having a legal record of where the buffer is supposed to be, the purpose of markers is to visually dissuade people and ATVs from overusing the buffer area and thus compacting the soil or unintentionally disturbing wildlife in the wetland.  A survey pin would not accomplish that. Paul Adamus From: Janet Alderton [mailto:jmalderton@yahoo.com]  Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:01 AM To: Shireene Hale; Scott Rozenbaum; Dan Nickel; Janice Biletnikoff; Rachel Dietzman; Erik (ECY)Stockdale; Anderson Paul (ECY NWRO SEA); Belluomini Steve; Ed Kilduff; Paul Adamus Cc: TomHruby Subject: Re: permanent markers for buffer boundaries Hi everyone, I know that we are outside of the commenting window, but I have found reference to the marking of buffer boundaries for Kitsap County in WA State. I favor some permanent marking of buffer boundaries. Regards, Janet #07 49708               Brown Reasonable Use Exception Staff Report              6 2. Buffer enhancement shall occur pursuant to the February 10, 2007 buffer enhancement plan prepared by B & A, Inc. Enhancement shall include plantings as specified in the plant list (Table 1), and removal of blackberry plants and fill within the designated buffer area. 3. The final planting schedule and monitoring plan shall be conditions of future building permit approval. Written confirmation of fill removal shall be submitted to Kitsap County DCD, by the applicant’s wetland consultant prior to building permit issuance. 4. A split rail fence shall be installed along the perimeter of the replanted buffer area prior to final occupancy, as indicated on the site plan. Wetland buffer signs (available from the Department) shall be installed at 50 foot intervals along the fence. cc:           Hearing Examiner Clerk of the Hearing Examiner Kitsap County DCD, Development Engineering Kitsap County DCD Staff Planner: David Greetham DCD File

No More "Shaddup You Face"

Joe Dolce may not be a name familiar to most of you, but back in the 1980s, he had a hit song which parodied the kind of civility he learned from his Italian mother. Having had some experience with that variety of civility myself, I have named it "Shaddup You Face" civility. It is, of course, based on the premise that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Some from our community have begun a public lament over declining civility. However Beatitude-like their sermons, bear in mind that when "they" are pleading for a return to civility, they really just want us to be quiet and conform. They want a return to "Shaddup You Face" civility:  the bogus civility that has existed around here for a long time.

There is nothing more uncivil than silence while our community is being taken away from us.

Civil discourse must be organized around the central principle of fair, open, and honest debate. Since debates are discussions between opposing views, they necessarily involve advocating for one's own view while critiquing an opponent's. For me, the ideal is British parliament, which outshines American political discourse in nearly every respect. Whatever failings the British political system might have, their civil discourse is raucous and brutally honest. We need more of that. Civil discourse shouldn't be a synonym for being vacuously "nice", "kind", "sweet", or "agreeable". It should be substantive and must often involve a requisite amount of uncomfortable bluntness. Civil discourse is speaking one's mind without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Far from a decline in civility, I feel our community is having a re-birth of civil discourse. From my perspective, these islands have languished somewhere between a one-party political state and suspended animation for several years. A much larger cross-section of the island populace is now engaged and participating in political discussion. Unfortunately, the new voices are receiving push back from those who thought they knew and controlled this community. It turns out they probably didn't.

I hope the emerging civil discourse continues to blossom. Honestly, I do not think there is any way to put the genie back in the bottle anyway.

As for those advocating for a return to civility, I think they need to examine the civility of the system that brought us to this state of affairs. When I hear laments about our County's supposed loss of civility; when I hear County officials claim they've been personally attacked when they've simply been disagreed with; when I hear sentimental pubic appeals for "community" while many of those same people privately work to divide, punish, control, and abuse; then like some Italian mothers I know, all I can think of is, "Che cavolo stai dicendo?"

Removing All Doubt

For the Planning Commission hearings on the wetlands CAO, hundreds of people showed up dispersed over four days to testify to the Planning Commission or just watch the proceedings. It was a remarkable sight to see so many bright, concerned people from all over these islands participate in our democracy. It was especially wonderful to see the diversity of the people. Gone, at least for the moment, were the days when no one but just a few Friends or government staffers were sprinkled about the gallery while the Commission considered matters in relative obscurity.

But not everyone saw the experience in a positive light. During last week's Council meeting, Shireene Hale, the planner in charge of the proposed CAOs, characterized the Planning Commission meetings immoderately. When speaking about the upcoming schedule for further Planning Commission meetings, she couldn't help but editorialize:

"by May the PC will have recuperated from the 4 awful Planning Commission meetings"

Awful?!? Recuperated? That's how a senior County staffer views us and reacts to the diverse public participation surrounding this crucial topic, arguably one of the most important pieces of land use legislation ever to be considered by this County?

Perhaps Shireene prefers the way things were working last autumn, when she appeared to be making decisions out of public view, in conjunction with the Friends and the State, and then simply informing local officials after the fact, including suggesting what is or is not a scientifically defensible approach.

Judge for yourself. What's closer to your definition of "awful"?

____________________________________________________________________

From: Richard Fralick
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:31 PM
To: richpeterson@rockisland.com
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: RE: What the heck is going on?

Hi Rich,

I received a call from Lovel  mid-afternoon today telling me that Paul Adamus threw a monkey wrench into the Planning Commission process on Thursday.  She also told me that Shireene was going to schedule a telecom with various players including Janet Alderton some time soon.  I told Lovel that I felt the process was spinning out of control and that Janet among others had no business being involved at this point in time. I strongly suggested that the Implementation Team needed to meet ASAP to sort things out, even if it meant meeting Thanksgiving Week.  At my insistence we are trying to schedule an Implementation Team Meeting next Monday.

Until your email, I had no idea that the call including Janet had been made as I was not copied on Shireene's email on Saturday.  I share your distress and promise that if it is at all within my power we will sort things out if and when we meet next Monday.  Please bear with me till then.

Richard Fralick  
______________________________

From: richpeterson@rockisland.com [mailto:richpeterson@rockisland.com]
Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 8:24 AM
To: Richard Fralick
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: What the heck is going on?

I'm sending on a memo Shireene sent to the Planning Commission for your information and to see if either of you have some of the questions I have about this process. Among mine is: What is it about Janet Alderton that gives her special standing enabling her participation in a conference call that ends up changing a staff reccomendation?  Rich



From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 1:03 AM
To: Shireene Hale; Lynda Guernsey; Janice Biletnikoff; Amy Vira; barbara thomas; Bob Gamble; Brian Ehrmantraut; Evelyn F Fuchser; John Lackey;john@sanjuanislands.com; Jon Cain; Karin Agosta; Lynda Guernsey; Mike Carlson; steph3339@gmail.com; Susan Dehlendorf
Subject: Update on discussion with scientists

Hello again,

After the Planning Commission hearing we had a conference call that included Dr. Adamus, Erik Stockdale (Ecology), and Janet Alderton. The main purpose of the call was to discuss Dr. Adamus' comments - which came as quite a surprise considering he told us he had reviewed the proposed changes, and he provided comments that were incorporated into the most recent draft. After talking he understood how we got from his prior version of the buffer sizing procedure to the simpler version.

Among other topics of discussion, most if not all of us reached the conclusion that 50% pollutant removal and 15 foot buffers are probably not adequate to protect wetland functions and values from the type of pollutants typically found in residential runoff. For water quality purposes, Dr. Adamus explained that the 15 ft. was based on the removal of coarse sediment (the easiest contaminant to remove) - not the fine sediment and soluable contaminants common in residential runoff.  It would have been great to have sorted that out before now - but better now than later.

In addition, I reached the conclusion that part of our problem in dealing with some of the water factors is that there are at least two important variables, slope and amount of impervious area, that both influence whether runoff is above or below ground and that vary independently, resulting in an array of combinations (both low, one high the other low, both high, and everything in between) that are difficult to show in a table format. (Whether runoff is above or below ground makes a difference because pollutant removal is more effective when the water stays below ground). The discussion with the scientists is continuing and I have proposed that we consider switching gears and using a simple equation to determine the necessary width of the water quality portion of the buffer, based on impervious area, slope and the presence (or absence) of a drainageway. The high and low ends of the buffer spectrum would remain the same (except for the 15 ft. buffers) and the buffers would still be based on the Mayer 2007 paper - there would just be a lot more incremental steps in between the small and larger buffers - which seems like a more scientifically defensible approach.

Anyway, I will keep you posted.

Thanks for your patience - this is not an easy task for any of us.

Shireene Hale, EHS
Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director
San Juan County Community Development & Planning PO Box 947

The Ignorance Of The Experts

If your pipes were to spring a leak, would you call an electrician? If you were needing heart surgery, would you make an appointment to see a wildlife biologist?

The wetland and shoreline buffers in San Juan County have been justified largely on the basis of their supposed ability to remove pollutants. Ecotoxicology is the study of the effects of chemicals on biological organisms. Fate and transport is the study of how chemicals move and degrade as they pass through the environment. 

How many ecotoxicologists or fate & transport specialists do you suppose produced the latest buffer proposal in our wetlands CAO draft?

Zero.

The current proposed buffer system for San Juan County was developed by wetland scientists and planners, with further extensive input from a cellular biologist-cum-Board member of the Friends, who by her own admission, hadn't even used Excel "in years." These technical experts produced a buffer calculator that establishes buffer sizes based on surface runoff.  "They" assumed that pollution is directly proportional to surface runoff. That's a novel concept, and by that logic, the Amazon River, being the largest river in the world in terms of volume, should also be the most polluted river in the world.

A more well-reasoned approach to pollutant transport might have been to hypothesize that pollutant loading would be related to the proximity and strength of a genuine pollutant source. For example, there are many authentic sources of industrial pollution adjacent to China's Yellow River. Which river would you venture to guess is more polluted? Is it the Yellow River, whose total yearly discharge is less than 3 days of Amazon flow, or is it the Amazon, the river with 20% of the world's river flow?

Of course, the Yellow River is more polluted.  It's one of the most polluted rivers in the world, but our County's proposed buffer methodology would have you conclude that the Amazon is dirtier. That's the kind of nonsensical outcome that occurs when you have wetland scientists and planners doing ecotoxicology and fate & transport. The answers given by their analysis are meaningless when no effort has been made to identify authentic pollutant sources first.

Buffer science, to the extent that it exists as a science at all, is really ecotoxicology and fate & transport performed by wetland scientists. As such, it is like heart surgery done by wildlife biologists:  it's messy, full of mistakes, and you really don't want to end up as the patient.

Buffers impose high social and economic costs upon a community in return for little to no ecological risk reduction. The real question is how in the first place did buffers ever establish their credible, but undeserved, reputation as an effective remedy for pollution in the GMA/CAO world?  One can only speculate on an answer, but I suspect that buffers, which are mostly non-solutions to non-problems, have never been properly scrutinized, analyzed, or challenged using an ecotoxicology or fate & transport approach. At times, the entire field of wetland science seems to be an echo chamber of professionals whose customary habit is to deny the standing of anyone outside "their" field, so I believe a sense of ownership by wetland scientists has hidden "buffer science" from serious critique by "outsiders." State wetland scientists and their consultants, not ecotoxicologist "outsiders", are the ones that push buffers.  The authority of these State wetland scientists cannot be overlooked as a major reason why buffers are so commonplace and highly regarded at the local level. It seems that whenever San Juan County has entertained second thoughts about standard CAO approaches or its costs to our community, the successive verbal prods by the State wetland scientists have been:

1. Please continue.
2. The process requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

And if you've ever had an introductory psychology course, you might recognize those verbal prods and understand the influence that an authority figure can have over their subjects. When you combine an ideology of good (e.g., the appearance of protecting the environment) with an authoritative figure (e.g., the State) that puts pressure on a local government suffused with confederates (e.g., the Friends), an otherwise objective participant in our local system can become psychologically disconnected from the severity of the unintended consequences of "good" actions. In that environment, "good" can transform itself into thoughtless and heartless injustice directed at fellow citizens. Obedience to "good" can frequently transform itself into oppressive behavior.

The Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, used to say that "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." When it comes to wetlands and the technical experts relied upon by the County, there is precious little skepticism of the "experts", and as a result, precious little science (or good) as well.

No Way To Treat A Nationally Recognized Expert

Goodness!  This is an email from Shireene to update the County's CAO Implementation Team. The title of this post refers to the fact that Dr. Adamus has often been touted as a nationally recognized wetland scientist, but look how Shireene talks about him. Amidst mention of crises and bayonets, it certainly looks as if Dr. Adamus is being elbowed out of the way in favor of what Shireene calls "my alternative wetlands buffer approach" which was subsequently refined by Dr. Adamus into the current Abacus Kadabra. This email certainly suggests that the whole approach is Shireene's to begin with, and everyone else involved, including Dr. Adamus, is just along for the ride.

How is it that our buffers are supposed to be scientific when they've apparently been designed quick and dirty as part of a CAO rescue mission by a planner and then justified after the fact by Dr. Adamus? The email also suggests that the addressees have known for quite some time that the buffer approach is Shireene's, not Dr. Adamus', but that hasn't stopped them from claiming that the latest wetland CAO is based on BAS. Increasingly, the record appears to show that Dr. Adamus is being used like a front man for the ideas of CDPD and Ecology, who appear to be desperate to ram home the CAOs at all costs and despite all opposition.

-----Original Message-----

From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:53 AM
To: Richard Fralick; Patty Miller; Lovel Pratt; Pete Rose; Randall Gaylord; Jon Cain; Janice Biletnikoff; Colin Maycock; Rene Beliveau
Subject: CAO/ SMP meeting Wednesday?

So are we meeting Wednesday? If so just let us know what time.

At this point, if you all can give me the go ahead to vet my alternative wetland buffer approach with our local citizen scientists and perhaps the Public Works engineers (or at least Rachel) that will allow us to move forward on the next draft of the Wetland regulations. It would not be an open ended, start from scratch discussion, nor a situation where they all have to agree, but rather me looking for input on my proposal.

If it makes you more comfortable I can discuss issues with them separately - though I think there is value in a focused group discussion. My recommendation is to send them the proposal (with a little more fleshing out) via e-mail, ask for comments (either verbal or via e-mail), rework it based on those comments, and then have one conference call to discuss where I ended up after incorporating pertinent suggestions. Even if not everyone agrees, as least the technical people will understand how this alternative approach would work. The biologists, hydrologists, engineers and wetland specialists I propose to include are: Steve Belluomini, Ed Kilduff, Scott Rozenbaum, Janet Alderton, Dr. Adamus, Dan Nickel, and Rachel Dietzman.

On the Voluntary Stewardship Program, Janice will be sending the Council an update, but basically we are proceeding with meeting the requirements of the law, which include conferring with Ag, tribal and environmental interests (meeting scheduled for Dec. 9) and preparing to do SEPA review/ notice and providing broad notice to the public (notice scheduled to be published November 30). I understand the Council will be considering the draft resolution and taking testimony on whether to opt in on December 13. Janice is putting the finishing touches on the draft resolution today and will give it to Randy for his review/ signature.

She will also put together a staff report on the program and the resolution (which will be headed for Pete's approval within the next week or so).

On the SMP update, Colin could use some guidance on whether the council wants to approve the shoreline inventory and characterization before he and the consultants begin working on draft goals and policies. We understand that some property owners are gathering information about their property and may wish to have some discussions with us once the draft shoreline designations are released, but I think that can be worked into the process. As long as their existing land use is not radically different than the properties surrounding them, the designations should recognize the built environment that currently exists.

For CAO at some point we should probably discuss if we are going to change the way we have been involving our citizen scientists in the review of technical issues. What we and the consultants have been doing is having direct conversations with them (either phone or e-mail) so that we understand their points of view and they understand our thinking. Steve Belluomini, Ed Kilduff, Scott Rozenbaum, Jim Johannessen, Russel Barsh and Janet Alderton have all been involved in this manner throughout the process including during the drafting of the BAS Synthesis (I am sure there are others as well given all the various disciplines we are dealing with). We do need to remain vigilant about separating personal comments that are outside the scientists' respective areas of expertise, from comments relating to their areas of expertise. Anyway, this approach has been working well and I would continue it (being mindful to include all who have expertise and would like to be involved).

At some point soon we do need to discuss Dr. Adamus' role moving forward. While he can be quite helpful, it is a problem if he doesn't have time to attend hearings (which we have not asked him to do but which would help him understand the comments we receive), review materials, and participate in problem solving in a constructive manner. His lack of attention and input into the last wetland draft resulted in a significant waste of both our time, and the public's time. If we had known he did not review the materials carefully and did not have time to do so we could have postponed the hearing until he did have adequate time to devote to the project.

Pete mentioned establishing some sort of field procedures for dealing with unexpected crises (e.g. last Thursday). If we learn from our mistakes, that crisis won't be repeated, and the next one will be something different. Some guiding principles might be helpful. Now that we are no longer faced with an impending Planning Commission hearing (which was to occur today) we can take a breath and think about how to navigate the difficult situations we will continue to face. I would suggest that bayonetting the wounded after the battle is probably not a good approach.

So, please keep us posted on whether the implementation committee is meeting next Wednesday and have a nice weekend!

Shireene Hale, EHS 

Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director 

San Juan County Community Development & Planning 

PO Box 947 

135 Rhone Street 

Friday Harbor, WA 98250 

360.370.7569

shireeneh@sanjuanco.com

Another Letter to the Council

Here's one more example of a citizen speaking out.  The question is whether anyone is listening. It doesn't seem so.

The Planning Commission deliberated on the wetlands CAO today. They put off their final vote until March 30, but preliminary feedback from the meeting suggests that the Planning Commission reviewed, and amended only marginally, the language of the wetlands CAO. It survived intact and is still largely the same document that attracted overwhelming criticism on March 6.

Dear Council Members,

     I have been following w/great interest the controversy concerning all the different aspects of the new CAO rules being considered.  I've not spoken up but now feel compelled to do so..

     I have watched videos of meetings and have attended two and am voraciously devouring all the letters and opinions concerning this.  A couple of things I've noticed. 

1.  Mr. (Dr.?) Adamus is vague and unable to support his opinions about the "best available science" concerning wetlands he has been using to make his recommendations.  And that is despite the time he has put into this and the money he has been paid.  He also seems very detached about any outcome and does not seem engaged in his research enough to do any extra work investigating w/out financial reward.  Is he a slow reader?  Is this a new area of study for him?  I was particularly surprised and unimpressed by the fact that nitrogen has been the entire subject of his studies and he didn't seem to have any controls, ie;  naturally occurring nitrogen via wild bird excrement, nitrogen producing trees, etc....  Very poorly done!  Oh my.  In a nutshell, his "studies" don't begin to support the extreme controls being considered.  Not by a long shot.  I was just SO unimpressed. 

2.  I have read and listened to opinions and statements by Stephanie Buffum and Janet Alderton concerning the wetlands and find they word things in a way that needs careful listening to decipher.  Janet's letter in the Journal last week included an oddly patronizing complement to John Evans thanking him for his careful investigations and then reassuring him that the shovel of dirt issue was indeed being looked at due to his observations.  Thanks to John you will consider "allowing" us to turn some dirt w/out permission.  I also hear Stephanie saying "existing agriculture" will be allowed to continue.  She avoids the subject of "new agriculture" if possible.  Or it seems that way to me. 

      The rules for development being considered for individual lots are not practical.  Self-sustaining and productive properties need to become the rule, not the exception.  People are becoming aware that they need to grow some of their own food, buy locally, and on and on.  To import what can be easily grown here because the permitting is too expensive and rigourous is just ludicrous.  Talk about pollution!  The freedom to garden is not the freedom that will pollute the earth.  The geese and ducks that live in the wetlands are more numerous than the chickens in the coops.  Your target is mis-placed. 

      I cannot in any way support the proposed rules and in fact the strength of argument and rational thought being exressed by the majority of the people against these potential rules far overpower the wishy washy "science" and fear based empty arguments expressed by the people wanting this.  That seems so obvious.  They have not proven to me the necessity and in fact begin to look foolish.

     There is no one who loves the islands more than I do.  It has been my home for my entire life and I have seen many changes.  I don't want the environment destroyed in any way.  But while the intent may be good the method is not.  Museum is the word that comes to my mind.

      I am sorry to sound harsh but listening to Adamus convinced me this is less than half baked.   I have gone from questioning this to being entirely against it. 

Sincerely,  Deborah Strasser