A Bankruptcy of Grant Recipients

If it's a "school" of fish ... and a "gaggle" of geese ... and a "murder" of crows ... then I propose the phrase,  "a bankruptcy of grant recipients."

On Tuesday of next week, Barbara Rosenkotter will be discussing the Lead Entity's salmon recovery efforts with our County Council. She sent out the following email to her colleagues asking them to support her during that meeting.

Looks like she wants a "bankruptcy" of grant recipients there to help her explain things.

From: Barbara Rosenkotter <barbarar@sanjuanco.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: Salmon Recovery Update to County Council - Sept 10th at 10:30am 

Hello MRC, TAG and project sponsors,

FYI, just wanted to let you know that there will be a salmon recovery update provided to the County Council on Tuesday, Sept 10^th around 10:30am.  If you can attend, it is helpful for them to see folks in the room.  They will be meeting in Friday Harbor in the county chambers. 

Thank you,

Barbara Rosenkotter

Lead Entity Coordinator for Salmon Recovery

San Juan County / WRIA2

barbarar@sanjuanco.com

360-370-7593

PO Box 947

135 Rhone Street

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

How Much Is That In Dog Grants?

The Island Guardian has a current article about the amount of money that has been spent on Salmon Recovery Grants. It amounts to $9.6 million state-wide this year. Over the past 10 years or so, with matching funds thrown in, the amount spent in San Juan County is about $12 million, according to statements and presentations by the Lead Entity Coordinator for San Juan County.

One of the recent grant-funded salmon recovery projects has been the purchase of a conservation easement by the San Juan Preservation Trust to "protect" land on Stuart Island. Just to be clear, grant money is coming from the State to our County, and then our County is providing the money to the San Juan Preservation Trust, who is purchasing a conservation easement from some private citizens who own land on Stuart Island ... who get the money and then get reduced taxes too because of the easement (yes, the State and County are giving out grants to lower their own tax base). The Guardian has the financial details, but the grant is for $800,000 ... with matching, the cumulative total amounts to a little over $1 million being spent on salmon recovery ... on that project alone.

Reportedly, this Reid Harbor project was highly rated by technical and citizen reviewers associated with our MRC. However, by my estimate, this project "protects" about 0.1% of our county's potential intertidal salmon habitat, assuming it was "threatened" at that location to begin with. Furthermore, the Guardian quotes Governor Inslee as saying,

"these projects will provide construction jobs and help countless numbers of Washington families and businesses, including tackle shops, charter operators, restaurants and hotels, that rely on the world-renowned Pacific salmon.” 

Another official says,

 "Puget Sound Chinook are about one-third as abundant as they were a century ago,” said David Troutt, chair of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. “As we have developed our urban and rural landscapes, we’ve damaged many of the estuaries, floodplains and rivers that salmon need to survive. These projects have been selected as ones that will make big impacts on Puget Sound and salmon recovery."

Does this Reid Harbor project provide construction jobs (nope)? ... protection (well, "they" say it does, but nope)? ... in Puget Sound (nope)? ... increase salmon populations (nope)? ... estuary, floodplain, or river (nope)? ... big impact on Puget Sound and salmon recovery (nope)? Does this project do any of the things talked about? Is it anything more than vacuous "save the environmental bureaucracy" PR messaging?

Answer: No

Mostly, San Juan County has intertidal salmon habitat rather than salmon spawning habitat. We don't have the really important "estuaries, floodplains, and rivers that salmon need to survive." State law provides a statutory path forward for counties that do not have "sufficient" intertidal habitat, and RCWs 77.85.220 & 230 set forth the requirements for an Intertidal Salmon Enhancement Plan. However, we don't have such a plan ... not one that follows the statutory requirements anyway.  So, by inference, it would seem that the State thinks we probably have "sufficient" intertidal habitat already.

There's a disconnect. We're spending millions to protect intertidal habitat here despite not having a proper Intertidal Salmon Enhancement Plan, which the State (the sugar daddy of habitat "protection" millions) would require if we had insufficient intertidal habitat.

How do we know when we're done with salmon recovery here? Is our goal to make intertidal habitat more than sufficient? How do we know if any of our salmon recovery efforts are doing anything? Do we know if we're making any progress?

Answer: We don't know.

Barbara Rosenkotter, Salmon Recovery Lead Entity Coordinator for San Juan County

The ABCs of Political Patronage

Lead Salmon Recovery Entity ... MRC ... LIO/AAOG ... Conservation District ... Stewardship Network ... Madrona Institute ... Friends of the San Juans ... ECONet ... PSP ... glossy Friends messaging brochures funded by State-government (PSP) Targeted Awareness Grants (TAG) ... millions spent on "salmon recovery" with no measurement of results and no accountability for failure ... frivolous and abusive Friends legal actions opposing everything from an 80-year old widow wanting to retire, to the CAOs -- whose passage and approval the Friends demanded.

You can cut the environmental phoniness in this county with a knife. We don't have "save the environment" groups. We have "save the environmental bureaucracy" groups.  Their primary interests are ensuring that they continue to get paid while they protect the political patronage system they've built.

The current titular heads of the patronage system are Jamie Stephens and Ron Zee. They are working in tandem to hold on to as much of the patronage system as they can, despite the election outcome.  So far, they're doing a pretty good job, and Stephens, in particular, is doing a superb job.

One of the greatest achievements of the patronage system is that we all take for granted that the County deserves a "seat at the table" with the tribes, the PSP, and even its own departments ... instead of actually running the County itself. The County has been demoted to being just another stakeholder, and the group-think of unelected employees and appointees has been promoted to government. That's how the LIO/AAOG works ... and the Stewardship Network ... and the ECONet ... the Lead Entity ... even the County's own MRC.  These groups are accountable to no one, and they represent no one but themselves. They reward themselves and their patronage cronies with money and multi-decade appointments while the County sits on its hands, convinced that it's just a "fiscal agent" or some other bureaucratic label that equates to "eunuch."

The congress of "environmental groups" operating here traces back to relatively few people who appear over and over again, but the proliferation of organizations, committees, and trusts makes it seem like the County is outnumbered. The County has been Delphi'd ... go along with the crowd ... behave ... fall in line ... be patient ... be part of a team ... you want to agree with the rest of us, don't you? ... DON'T YOU?!?!

Stephens has this down pat, and he is working the other two Councilmen for all its worth. Stephens' protection of the patronage system is nothing short of heroic. He got himself appointed Chair of the Council. Stephens sits on the MRC. He's the Council representative on the LIO/AAOG too ... all the key places the patronage system wants to protect. Also, despite the fact that major aspects of the patronage system should have been (and could have been) dismantled immediately, Stephens' has effectively used a series of delay tactics and other maneuvers to convince the other Councilmen that they're "part of a team" and reform "takes time" and we need "patience" ... let's get more "input." When you hear one of our politicians use those words, that's the patronage system talking ... that's a Delphi zombie courtesy of Stephens.

John Cleese recently wrote a satirical piece about terror alerts in various countries in Europe.  Here's what he said about the French.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Aside from that excerpt being terribly ironic given the positions taken by the UK and France over the last two days, let's hope it's not the role model for our new Councilmen as they contend with our system of political patronage.

Jamie Stephens, Chair of the San Juan County Council

Ron Zee, Chair of the San Juan Islands Conservation District

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #3

Another Rosenkotter email to another tribe (Tulalip ... Rawson's former employer). The Tulalip letter to the State is at the bottom of this post.  As with the Lummi correspondence, no one bothers to inform or even cc our Council.
______________________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:45 AM

To: Terry Williams

Subject: San Juan Lead Entity Transition

Dear Terry,

As a follow up to my voice mail message…

We are considering moving the fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity from San Juan County to the San Juan Islands Conservation District. As you may recall, the Lead Entity was originally housed within the San Juan Islands Conservation District when the Lead Entity program was established in the San Juans in 2000. It was moved to San Juan County in 2005.

Due to ever tightening county budgets San Juan County has sought to recoup additional overhead costs at the same time that federal and state funding for the Lead Entity program has been reduced. This has put an ongoing squeeze on the local program. As you know, the Lead Entity Coordinator position was reduced to part time this last year due to the reduction in funding.

The San Juan Islands Conservation District has offered to become the fiscal agent once again to house the Lead Entity program for San Juan / WRIA2. And is offering to do so at about half the overhead costs that San Juan County requires. It seems like a prudent step to accept this offer to move the Lead Entity program back to the local Conservation District. This move will allow for more funding to support the actual program and require less of the funding to be expended on overhead costs.

Based on the Salmon Recovery RCW 77.85 it is our understanding that tribal governments should be consulted regarding the proposed fiscal agent change for the San Juan / WRIA 2 Lead Entity program (see the statutory language below). And in consultation with Lloyd Moody of the Governors Salmon Recovery Office and the Recreation and Conservation Office, who oversees the Lead Entity programs across the state, he has confirmed that tribal governments would need to provide their support by letters or resolutions.

Thus this email to you requesting your assistance to provide a Tulalip letter of support or resolution in support of the change in fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity.

Please let me know if you perceive any issues with this request and also let me know if there is anyone else at Tulalip that I should work with on this request.

Thank you,

Barbara Rosenkotter

Lead Entity Coordinator for Salmon Recovery

San Juan County / WRIA2

barbarar@sanjuanco.com

360-370-7593

PO Box 947

135 Rhone Street

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

77.85.050

Habitat project lists.

(1)(a) Counties, cities, and tribal governments must jointly designate, by resolution or by letters of support, the area for which a habitat project list is to be developed and the lead entity that is to be responsible for submitting the habitat project list. No project included on a habitat project list shall be considered mandatory in nature and no private landowner may be forced or coerced into participation in any respect. The lead entity may be a county, city, conservation district, special district, tribal government, regional recovery organization, or other entity.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #2

In the last post, we saw Barbara Rosenkotter write to Kit Rawson to ask for a list of tribal contacts who might publicly support the move of the Salmon Lead Entity program from San Juan County to the Conservation District. Dutifully, Rawson provided a tribal contact list to Rosenkotter, and Rosenkotter started writing to the tribes. It was just that simple.

This is how influence works, and this is how easy it is for a rogue County staffer to wield influence in league with a power-hungry Conservation District. Below is the tribal contact list sent to Rosenkotter by Rawson. Then, below that is one of the emails sent by Rosenkotter to one of the tribal contacts without the knowledge of our Council or even so much as a cc to our Council. At the very bottom of this post, we have one of the tribal letters sent to the State in response to Rosenkotter's request ... again no cc by the tribe to our Council. It was all done on the QT.

We'll publish some of the other tribal letters in coming posts.
______________________________________________________

As of 12/12/2012 - Tribes and Tribal Chairs

Here are the names of the tribes and tribal chairs (in alphabetical order), along with others to whom the letter should probably be sent. As far as honorifics go, treat the tribal chairs as you would treat any other executive level leader of government.

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

1033 Old Blyn Highway

Sequim, WA 98328

William “Ron” Allen, Chair

(also send to Scott Chitwood, Natural Resources Director)

Lower Elwha Klallam tribe

2851 Lower Elwha Road

Port Angeles, WA 98363

Frances Charles, Chair

(also send to Doug Morrill, Natural Resources Director)

Lummi Nation

2616 Kwina Road

Bellingham, WA 98226

Cliff Cultee, Chair

(also send to Merle Jefferson, Natural Resources Director; Eldon Hillaire, Natural Resources Commission Chairman; Randy Kinley, Policy Representative; Alan Chapman, ESA Coordinator)

Makah Tribe (not a tribe with U&A in the San Juans, but I think you wanted to send to them too)

P.O. Box 115

Neah Bay, WA 98357

Michael J. Lawrence, Chair

(also send to Russ Svec, Fishery Manager)

Nooksack Tribe

P.O. Box 157

Deming, WA 98244

Bob Kelly, Chairman

(also send to Gary McWilliams, Natural Resources Director)

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

31912 Little Boston Road NE

Kingston, WA 98346

Jeromy Sullivan, Chair

(also send to Paul McCollum, Natural Resources Director)

Suquamish Tribe

18490 Suquamish Way

Suquamish, WA 98392

Leonard Forsman, Chair

(also send to Rob Purser, Fisheries Director)

Swinomish Tribal Community

P.O. Box 817

11404 Moorage Way

La Conner, WA 98257

Brian Cladoosby, Chair

(also send to Lorraine Loomis, Fisheries Manager and Charlie O’Hara, Planning Director)

Tulalip Tribes

6406 Marine Drive

Tulalip, WA 98271

Melvin R. Sheldon, Jr., Chair

(also send to Ray Fryberg, Sr., Executive Director of Natural Resources; Terry R. Williams, Commissioner of Fisheries and Wildlife; Kit Rawson, Conservation Science Program Manager)

_______________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter

Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:43 AM

To: Stan Walsh (swalsh@skagitcoop.org)

Subject: San Juan Lead Entity Transition

Dear Stan,

As a follow up to our conversation yesterday, we are considering moving the fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity from San Juan County to the San Juan Islands Conservation District. As you may recall, the Lead Entity was originally housed within the San Juan Islands Conservation District when the Lead Entity program was established in the San Juans in 2000. It was moved to San Juan County in 2005.

Due to ever tightening county budgets San Juan County has sought to recoup additional overhead costs at the same time that federal and state funding for the Lead Entity program has been reduced. This has put an ongoing squeeze on the local program. As you know, the Lead Entity Coordinator position was reduced to part time this last year due to the reduction in funding.

The San Juan Islands Conservation District has offered to become the fiscal agent once again to house the Lead Entity program for San Juan / WRIA2. And is offering to do so at about half the overhead costs that San Juan County requires. It seems like a prudent step to accept this offer to move the Lead Entity program back to the local Conservation District. This move will allow for more funding to support the actual program and require less of the funding to be expended on overhead costs.

Based on the Salmon Recovery RCW 77.85 it is our understanding that tribal governments should be consulted regarding the proposed fiscal agent change for the San Juan / WRIA 2 Lead Entity program (see the statutory language below). And in consultation with Lloyd Moody of the Governors Salmon Recovery Office and the Recreation and Conservation Office, who oversees the Lead Entity programs across the state, he has confirmed that tribal governments would need to provide their support by letters or resolutions.

Thus this email to you requesting your assistance to provide a tribal letter of support or resolution in support of the change in fiscal agent for the San Juan / WRIA2 Lead Entity.

Please let me know if you perceive any issues with this request and how I may be of assistance.

Thank you,

Barbara Rosenkotter

Lead Entity Coordinator for Salmon Recovery

San Juan County / WRIA2

barbarar@sanjuanco.com

360-370-7593

PO Box 947

135 Rhone Street

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

77.85.050

Habitat project lists.

(1)(a) Counties, cities, and tribal governments must jointly designate, by resolution or by letters of support, the area for which a habitat project list is to be developed and the lead entity that is to be responsible for submitting the habitat project list. No project included on a habitat project list shall be considered mandatory in nature and no private landowner may be forced or coerced into participation in any respect. The lead entity may be a county, city, conservation district, special district, tribal government, regional recovery organization, or other entity.

_____________________________________________________________

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