Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #8

The Conservation District that exists today is not the same animal that formed in 1947. In fact, the Conservation District has undergone tremendous change in just the past year. In the last few months, they let go a long-time senior planner (Dana Kinsey). They hired Lyshall as District Manager, and they recently hired a couple of other part-time junior staffers.

Zee and the Stewardship Network Steering Committee (Zee, Lyshall, Stephanie Buffum, Lincoln Bormann) also appointed Julia Vouri as Coordinator of the Stewardship Network/ECONet "under the umbrella of the Conservation District." And when we decipher what that last sentence means, we'll let you know, but it sounds like Zee has found a way to get around the Conservation District Board and absorb whatever/whomever he wants into the CD by using bureaucratic sleight of hand.

So when the Conservation District talks about all the great things they've done (as they do in the email below), the people who are there now are not necessarily the ones who accomplished them. The people who are there now have a different agenda ... empire building. The CD is transforming itself into "grant central" for the county. The CD wants tax money, Salmon Recovery money, Voluntary Stewardship Plan money, and every other public penny it can get its grubby mitts on. It is getting ready for big plans, big money, and good times.

The Conservation District (with their farm plans and native plant sale) is to the Machine/Network what the Genco Olive Oil Company was to the Corleone Family. It's a front. It's a place to launder money from the State and elsewhere ... money for messaging and bad-science ... and re-brand it as grassroots, locally-based, environmentally conscious, conservation "science based planning."

Letting our Conservation District continue to operate would be like letting the mafia survive because we like olive oil.

The email below was sent out recently by the Conservation District to encourage people to support the CD's requested new tax assessment. It was effective. Many people turned out to testify before the County Council about the wholesome goodness of the Conservation District and the wonderful things it does (or used to do).  Honestly, though, look how anemic even the CD's own numbers are for the benefits they've bestowed on us.

80 ... they've helped 80 people. Not 80 people per year ... but over 5 years ... that's about half of one percent of our population of 15,000+.  And they have benefited (whatever that means) 3,500 acres. Our county has about 110,000 acres.

Frankly, that's not even much of a front. The CD has to go; otherwise, it won't be long before they're making us offers we can't refuse.
________________________________________________

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

From: Bruce Gregory

To: mitchellbayfarm@gmail.com

Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 1:53 PM

Subject: Request for support

Dear SJC landowner,

I am contacting you because you have worked with the San Juan Islands Conservation District in the last few years and understand what we do and how we are placed within the context of land conservation for residential, farm or forest lands.

Our history goes back to 1947 in San Juan County. The work with do with landowners is done using a non-regulatory, non-enforcement, science based planning process.   We have continued to offer our services over the years while growing with the changes in science and our local land base.   We have offered access to information and cost-share opportunites for enhancing your management work and your working lands.  Our work has benefited over 80 landowners and 3500 acres in the last five years.  You were one of those landowners.

The current County Assessment Ordinance provides us with a $5 assessment per parcel. Because of a recent state Supreme Court ruling the ordinance needs to be re-worded to include a per acre amount to meet the requirements of state law. The proposed new ordinance changes the fee to $5 per parcel plus 5 cents per acre. In other words, an owner of a 10-acre parcel would pay $5.50 rather than the current $5 per year.  The additional revenues (approximately $3,800) will mostly be spent on County administrative costs to implement the changes.

To make this change in the ordinance a public hearing is required. Our hearing with the County Council is scheduled for next Tuesday, August 6th at 9:00 AM.

If you would be willing to appear in person (if you can!) or even write an email to the County Council members expressing your support we would really appreciate it.

If you do send an email please do send me a copy of it so I can refer to it during the hearing.

You may reach the County Council members collectively at:  SJC Council  <council@sanjuanco.com>

Our via each Council members email contact:

Bob Jarman <bobja@sanjuanco.com>

Rick Hughes <Rickh@sanjuanco.com>

Jamie Stephens <jamies@sanjuanco.com>

Please feel free to contact me or our new district manager Linda Lyshall if you have any questions!

Regards,

R. Bruce Gregory
San Juan Islands Conservation District
NRCS Certified Planner
Farm & Forest Resources
 ▲▲▲▲▲▲☼▲▲▲
Mail: 350 Court St. #10
Office: 530 Guard St.
Friday Harbor, San Juan Is. WA  98250
360-378-6621
b.gregory@sanjuanislandscd.org

Conservation District Watch: The Stacked Deck

The San Juan Islands Conservation District has merged with the San Juan County Stewardship Network and the Puget Sound Partnership's ECONet. Moreover, the non-profit Madrona Institute and the PSP's Action Agenda Oversight Group (AAOG)/Local Implementation Organization (LIO) have incestuous links to the Conservation District too.

Let's play a shortened version of 20 questions ... let's try 6 questions:

1. Who is head of the San Juan Islands Conservation District?
2. Who is on the steering committee of the Stewardship Network?
3. Who is the founder and head of the Madrona Institute, which acts as the fiscal agent for the Stewardship Network, receiving a modest 5% to 10% cut on all grants?
4. Who endorsed Pratt, Stephens, and Byers for Council?
5. Who has been trying to take County programs and grants away from the County (e.g., Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator)?
6. Who has been discussing #5 above with Jamie Stephens in relative secrecy?

The answer to all of the above is Ron Zee, who is part-creator, part-manipulator of a giant hairball bureaucracy that is a wolf (PSP) in Conservation District clothing. At the end of this post is an effort to depict this hairball with a graph, but honestly, it's an impossible task. Complexity is their disguise. It's a Gordian Knot of bureaucratic self-interest and conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, I hope readers begin to get an idea who the real power is behind this bureaucracy ... and it's not our elected officials.

The Stewardship Network is comprised of 24 organizations, including 5 separate County entities. The Steering Committee for the Stewardship Network is comprised of 4 people: Zee, Linda Lyshall (who works for Zee at the Conservation District), Stephanie Buffum of the Friends, and Lincoln Bormann of the Land Bank. This Steering Committee recently appointed Julia Vouri to be the coordinator of the Stewardship Network/ECONet "under the umbrella of the Conservation District."  The Conservation District Board had no say in the matter. Julia Vouri is the wife of Mike Vouri, who happens to be on the Advisory Board of the Madrona Institute. The Madrona Institute was founded and is headed by Zee. He has put together a 4-person Madrona Institute Board (himself, Land Bank Commissioner Jim Skoog, League of Women Voters member Sarah Crosby, and Elaine Kendall of the Ag Guild ... Zee's wife). In addition, Zee has assembled an 18-member Madrona Institute Advisory Committee that includes Linda Lyshall (again), Lincoln Bormann (again), the previously mentioned Mike Vouri, Nick Teague (National Monument/BLM Manager), and Katie Loring, wife of Friends' attorney Kyle Loring who Zee appointed as Associate Board member of the Conservation District.

Given the weight of all these heavily-networked advisors and board members, anyone who thinks the measly Conservation District Board has any power is at best an optimist and at worst a damn fool. The Conservation District Board consists of 5 members, two of whom are appointed by the State. There are just three elected members to the Conservation District Board in an otherwise sprawling complex of self-appointed greased-palm special interests.

And that's not even including the links between the Conservation District and the AAOG/LIO, whose links to the Conservation District are so cozy that the Conservation District has an office reserved for them in their new building. Who's on the AAOG/LIO, aside from the Conservation District itself? Let's see ... the Implementation Committee of the AAOG/LIO consists of a further 12 organizations, including the Marine Resources Committee (again), the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator (again), the Stewardship Network (again), three County departments (Public Works, CD&P, Health), the Water Resources Committee, the Town, and 3 tribes.

In this impossible-to-follow Gordian Knot, self-appointed Zee-cronies are represented multiple times while the public is shut out. Let's look at the Salmon Lead Entity (SLE), for example. The Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator is Barbara Rosenkotter, who was the Treasurer for Byers campaign (endorsed by then-Democratic-Party-head Zee). Although Rosenkotter ostensibly works for the County, she represents the Stewardship Network, the MRC, and the AAOG/LIO Implementation Committee ... and she has been working stealthily with Zee, the Northwest Straits Commission/Foundation, and the tribes to move her position and State funding to the Conservation District.

There you have it ... 24 organizations in the Stewardship Network, 18 advisors to the Madrona Institute, 4 board members of the Madrona Institute, 13 members to the AAOG/LIO Implementation Committee, 2 State appointees to the Conservation District ... and just 3 elected members of the Conservation District Board. No independently elected official to the Conservation District or even to our County Council has a clue how they're being played by this bureaucracy of mass destruction. No matter how improved the Conservation District electoral system might become as a result of anticipated reforms and lawsuits, the fix is already in ... the elected positions don't even matter anymore ... the Conservation District is machine headquarters where the business of the PSP and Friends is done. The Conservation District is hopelessly broken as a representative body.

And this cabal will pass judgment on whether we, as a County, are good Puget Sound Partners. That's important because whether we are good Puget Sound Partners will matter when our County tries to obtain funding from the State. There is statutory language to that effect. Given the hearings this past week about Conservation District funding, the County Council may be under the misapprehension that they are funding the Conservation District, but in reality, it's the reverse. The County is being set up to be squeezed by the Conservation District, the PSP, and the Friends over State money. If we don't follow their whims, our State funding will be threatened.

And despite the high-minded labels (e.g., Salmon Lead Entity) and the strident, tearful pleas of bureaucratic insiders crying about the environment, absolutely none of the bureaucratic whims have anything to do with improving ecological health. The taxes and grants devoted to bureaucratic eco-efforts aren't funding on-the-ground "save the salmon" or "save the planet" initiatives ... they're funding "save the bureaucracy" initiatives.

Support the Conservation District and save a self-interested bureaucrat ... and maybe even earn a modest 5% to 10% cut for Zee at the same time.  Now that's environmental stewardship San Juan style.

Click to enlarge. Right-click to download.

Spreading Like Wildfire

In the last post, we introduced readers to the local PSP ECONet, which is the PSP appellation for one of our local organizations more commonly known as the Stewardship Network. The Stewardship Network is an organization of organizations.

Who belongs to the Stewardship Network? Their webpage currently lists 24 member organizations. Curiously, included among those 24 members are 5 separate County entities: the Agricultural Resources Committee, Land Bank, Marine Resource Committee, San Juan County Noxious Weed Board, and San Juan County Lead Entity Program for Salmon  Recovery.  Not only that, but the Steering Committee of the Stewardship Network consists of Lincoln Bormann of the Land Bank, Linda Lyshall of the Marine Resources Committee, Stephanie Buffum of the Friends, Ron Zee of the Madrona Institute (more on that in later posts), and Kathleen Foley of the San Juan Preservation Trust. In fact, until recently, Lincoln Bormann of the Land Bank and Stephanie Buffum of the Friends were identified as the Co-Chairs of the Stewardship Network Steering Committee.

How is it that so many County organizations are involved in the Stewardship Network? How is it that County personnel are "steering" the Stewardship Network (Bormann, Lyshall) jointly with the Friends when there isn't any Council input or approval related to their participation. I don't even understand how the County can be represented by five separate entities in one Network? Even if the County were to participate, wouldn't we want just one person/group representing us?

We saw in the last post how the ECONet/Stewardship Network received money from Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) "Targeted Awareness Grants" to spread very specific PSP-formulated messages. Knowing that and seeing the Stewardship Network's membership list, we have to conclude that the County member entities must have been in on it too. Furthermore, below is another email discussing yet another grant related to communication, this time focused on "social marketing behavior change." From other documentation we have, this second grant seems to have focused on spreading two of the perennially favorite talking-points of the Friends, namely reducing pesticide use (remember Janet Alderton's pyrethrin obsession?) and increasing native vegetation.

Now, these topics may or may not have individual merit, but even if they do, we all know how twisted even meritorious topics can become when in the hands of the Friends.  But of greater concern is how we can have multiple County entities involved in a naked advocacy Network that promotes the favorite talking points of the Friends with PSP grant funding for "targeted awareness" and "behavior change"? How does that happen?

And rather than just promoting certain messaging, the Network isn't shy about trying to quash messaging that they don't agree with either. For example, at several times in the past, the Trojan Heron has noted that "civility" has been used in attempts to silence we critics who want reform of the County's environmental approaches. Of particular note, back in April 2012, there seemed to be a coordinated effort by multiple members of the Friends and County sympathizers to use a meme of civility to pressure CAO critics to shut up. Now we find a possible explanation in the March 2012 minutes of the Stewardship Network where it is noted that the Friends introduced the following item for discussion (emphasis added):

Friends of the San Juans: Need to address as a Network the anti-environmental messaging that is spreading like wild-fire in our community. “Environmentalism is killing property values”. “There’s a strategic wide-spread land grab occurring in SJC by environmental organizations”. As a Network we need to strategize our messaging that Nature is our Economy. Consider a communications forum on civility in the face of aggressive confrontation.

And based on the latest civility admonitions by Kit Rawson, not to mention some of the economic talking-points of some current candidates, it would seem that the Network is still working this agenda item.
_______________________________________________________________

From: Karrie Cooper [mailto:karriedcooper@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Judy Cumming; Shann Weston; Erin Corra; Barbara Marrett; Barbara Rosenkotter; Linda Lyshall
Subject: Upcoming Social Marketing Grant

Hi all, I just spoke with Kristen Cooley about the upcoming grant to design and implement a social marketing behavior change project. 

We should be getting official notification in the next two weeks.  With approximately 6 weeks to submit.  The project lead needs to have participated in Nancy Lee's training, hence me sending this to you all.

The process will involve submitting a letter of intent outlining the proposed project (2 letters may be submitted per ECO Net). Then, if choosen, a full proposal will be requested.

The grant will involve going throught the 10 Steps of a Social Marketing campaign.  The behavior, audience and focus will need to be directly connected to addressing an area of the Action Agenda, regional and/or local. 

The amount will range from $20,000 to $40,000 with a 20% match and 2 years to implement.

We need to put on our thinking caps for what we might want to do with this grant opportunity. Please let me know of your interest and ideas. 

Thanks Much!

Karrie

Karrie D. Cooper, Coordinator
Stewardship Network of the San Juans

www.stewardshipsjc.org
karriedcooper@gmail.com
812-322-0453 work cell