Showing posts with label Lyshall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lyshall. Show all posts

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Pure Imagination: Tulalip Burial Grounds

Dana Kinsey of Orcas Island, and formerly of the Conservation District, recently wrote an open letter to Councilmen Jarman and Hughes about her concerns regarding our Local Integrating Organization (LIO). In her letter, Kinsey alleges that Linda Lyshall has been shifting LIO funding to the Conservation Distict for her own benefit. Kinsey wrote:
It appears that [Lyshall] is determining projects, grantees and funding now. I thought she was originally hired by San Juan County to coordinate the LIO part time as a county employee. Now suddenly, in this new proposal all the work and money go to the Conservation District. Is it because [Lyshall] took a job there in May?
We agree with Kinsey that the Council should start asking the LIO a lot more questions ... everyone should. Even in a world where miscreant government is the norm, the LIO sticks out for being a freakish Franken-bureaucracy beyond compare.

The Trojan Heron will do an entire series of posts about the LIO in the near future, but for the moment, we want to provide some background about one of its governing members ... the Tulalip Tribes. 

First, we need to explain how the Tulalips fit into the LIO. The LIO is "governed" by an Accountability Oversight Committee (AOC) comprised of our County government together with three local tribes ... the Tulalip Tribes, the Lummi Nation, and the Swinomish Tribe. The LIO manages our local ecosystem, using the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda for San Juan County as a plan.  That's right ... our local ecosystem is not managed by our elected County Council. Instead it is managed according to a blueprint (the Action Agenda) formulated by a State bureaucracy (the PSP) and then implemented by an intergovernmental panel consisting of 1 collective vote for 3 local tribes and 1 vote for our elected County government.

So what are our LIO tribal partners like? Here are some facts about the Tulalips.

As anyone who has driven down I-5 knows, the Tulalip Tribes have a reservation in Snohomish County. The 22,000-acre reservation is home to about 2,500 tribal members (another 1,500 live off the reservation) and about 8,000 non-tribal members. That gives the reservation a population density exceeding 3 times that of San Juan County. 

According to DSHS, tribal members are entitled to a $2,000 quarterly stipend, with a December bonus of $3,500. In 2012, tribal members received $11,500. The elderly and disabled receive payments of $1,000 per month. Tuition assistance is available for Tulalip tribal members attending college. Tribal members also receive an employment preference for jobs on the reservation.

Who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member? That is a very interesting question. These days, to become a Tulalip tribal member, a child has to be born to a tribal member who has lived on the reservation for at least 12 months prior to the child's birth. That means that a full-blood Tulalip born in Boston, New York City, or Portland is not a member of the tribe and can never be a member of the tribe. On the other hand, even a mostly non-Tulalip child born on the reservation to a tribal member is automatically a tribal member. These strange tribal membership rules are described by a Tulalip tribal member and blogger in the following way:
As a 20 year old Tulalip female, it disturbs me to know that there is no blood quantum to become a Tulalip tribal member. “The applicant must be a child born to any Member of the tribe, which Member is a Resident as defined herein.” [Sec.3.0] Since this is all you have to do to become a tribal member, the tribe ends up having a lot of non-native members. 
The rules provide a loop hole that permits whites and other non-natives to enroll. My cousin is a perfect example. He is less than one-eighth and is still an enrolled tribal member. His child is less than one-sixteenth because he is having a baby with a white woman. His child will surely be enrolled because he lives on the Tulalip Reservation and is a tribal member of the Tulalip tribes. The resident rule excludes some Native Americans from enrollment. 
For example, my younger sister didn’t have acceptable mail with her name and address on it. She needed it to prove residency which caused problems in enrolling her children. My sister is currently living on the Tulalip reservation with her children where they have been living since they were born. The rules also cause problems for Tulalip tribal members who move off of the reservation.
Other tribes tease the Tulalip tribes because many of our members are white. They call us white Tulalip because the large amount of white tribal members. A Native American tribe is supposed to be made up of Native American people not white or black people. If non-natives are allowed to be enrolled, they take money from the Native Americans.
In other words, Tulalip tribal membership isn't the same as Tulalip heritage anymore, and the Tulalips are not the only tribe to view tribal membership in this way. In fact, a congressional study predicts that nationwide only 3% of "Indians" will be full blooded by 2080.

The Tulalips have been very successful economically. The reservation operates Quil Ceda Village (a 100-store mall), Quil Ceda Creek Casino, Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip Liquor Store and Smoke Shop, Tulalip Broadband, a fish hatchery, and a closed hazardous waste landfill that used to be a Superfund site ... more on that in a moment.

Tulalip operations earn hundreds of millions in revenue each year (estimated to be more than $200 million back in 2005). Only a very small proportion of tribal revenue is generated from fishing these days. Reportedly, 30 tribal members are licensed to fish, which is down from about 130 tribal members in the mid-1980s.

Getting back to the Tulalip Superfund Site, the EPA says the following:
Tulalip Landfill is a 147-acre site located on North Ebey Island, within the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation near Marysville, Washington. The landfill is surrounded by Ebey Slough to the north and Steamboat Slough to the south. Surface water from these sloughs flows into northern Puget Sound, a federally designated national estuary that is a recognized habitat for shellfish and some endangered species, including salmon. The Tulalip Tribe leased land to the Seattle Disposal Company from 1964 to 1979. During that time, an estimated four million tons of commercial, industrial, and hospital waste were deposited in the landfill. In 1979, the landfill was closed. An estimated 7,800 people obtain their drinking water from private and municipal wells that are within four miles of the site. The nearest drinking water source is within one mile of the site.
The site underwent cleanup about 15 years ago, and in April 2013, the EPA completed it's third 5-Year Review of the remedy. The remedy consists of an engineered 7-layer containment system to better isolate the waste and contamination, groundwater monitoring for at least 30 years, and institutional controls (e.g., land use restrictions and administrative controls such as warning signs).

Prior to landfilling activities, the land on which the landfill is located consisted of relatively undisturbed intertidal wetlands. After landfilling operations ceased, contaminated leachate was seeping out into the nearby wetlands causing concerns for human health and the environment, so the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1995. In an editorial from that year, Greg Wingard, President Waste Action Project Seattle, wrote the following:
EPA investigation of the site showed hazardous and bio-hazard waste was disposed of there. Leachate from the landfill was determined to be toxic and a danger to salmon in the nearby Quilceda Creek.  When EPA sent a team of divers in to investigate the landfill's impact on Puget Sound, they found body parts, bloody bandages and other medical waste.
Most of the divers contracted armpit and groin infections as a result of their exposure. Tests run on bacteria samples by EPA showed most of the samples were highly resistant to the 13 antibiotics tested. Some of the samples were 100 percent resistant to everything used against them. This information is contained in the EPA Region X file on the landfill.
From looking at the documentation and the data, I have to say that I truly believe the Tulalip landfill has an effective remedy in place now. In its current remediated state, I believe that the risks to human health and the environment have been mitigated. But if the remediated Tulalip landfill of horrors can safety exist directly adjacent to the shore of Puget Sound, so can an average home in the San Juans.

The Tulalips have a role in managing our ecosystem via the LIO. Tribal employees (e.g., Kit Rawson) have been long-term tribal representatives to our Marine Resources Committee. Tulalips have "usual and accustomed" fishing rights in our waters. When you encounter Tulalip environmental-ish policies and statements regarding salmon ... or regarding climate change and sea level rise ... or even their heritage ... take note that fishing is just one more line of business for the tribe and its tribal members ... take note that the Tulalip reservation has a delisted Superfund site sitting in wetlands barely above high tide on Puget Sound ... take note of who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member and who doesn't ... take note that the tribe is an economic and development powerhouse.

I believe Tulalip tribal government officials have been very effective advocates for the economic and cultural interests of their tribal members ... and we should expect our County Council to be no less effective at advocating for us.

An oblique aerial photo of the remediated Tulalip Superfund Landfill on North Ebey Island on the Tulalip Reservation.  Where is the buffer?

Sunday, September 8, 2013

The Walking Dead Bureaucracy

Back in the heady days of 2006, the County entered into an agreement with a 501(c)(3) called Shared Strategy for Puget Sound to develop an ecosystem-based management system for the San Juan Islands. Amy Windrope was hired as Project Manager in November 2006 while a consultant named Jim Kramer ran Shared Strategy. As with most environmental initiatives around here, there was an awful lot of coordination that had to happen, paid for by a bucketload of grant money. Meetings were held; oversight committees were appointed; regulatory agencies and experts graciously devoted their time; and in the end, a report was written. Nothing actually happened to the environment, but a lot of people got paid handsomely for talking with other people about how much they love the environment.


Late last year (while she worked for the County), Linda Lyshall applied for a grant from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, where Amy Windrope now works. The purpose of the grant was to report on the County's progress in implementing the San Juan Initiative's work. When the grant was awarded, it became the subject of a County discussion when the then-Council found out about it after the fact.  It was covered in a story in the Island Guardian at the time:
Council Chair Patty Miller, while supportive of accepting the invitation to join in and hold a public meeting to review progress made towards implementing the Initiative’s previous recommendations, questioned who, exactly, applied for the grant in San Juan County’s name in the first place?

Miller also asked how many more grants has the County applied for, and by whom?
And just like that, the San Juan Initiative came back to life like Lazarus ... even though it's still not clear how this undead bureaucracy rose again or who constituted it. Now, after spending another $77K in grant and matching funds during its afterlife, a group calling themselves the San Juan Initiative is set to present a follow-up report to the Council on Monday. Incredibly, the list of report preparers includes Patty Miller ... the very woman who questioned how the grant came to be in the first place.

It is not clear who appointed these people. Were they appointed by the Council or did they appoint themselves?  It's not clear if they think they are the San Juan Initiative or some group following up on the San Juan Initiative.  Their letterhead says "San Juan Initiative," and the all-too-familiar list of serial participants includes:
  • Jonathan White, Co-Chair
  • Lovel Pratt, Co-Chair
  • Lisa Byers
  • Patty Miller
  • Linda Lyshall
  • Stephanie Buffum Field
  • Peter Kilpatrick
  • Tom Cowan
  • Marilyn O’Connor
Were Pratt and Miller working for the San Juan Initiative (and voting to receive their own grant money) while they were on the Council? 



Thursday, August 22, 2013

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 -----
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 Series - Installment #7

I'm sure you're familiar with the Dos Equis commercial? Well, judging by the doors that fly open for Lyshall, Rosenkotter, and Zee, I'm really beginning to wonder if they might qualify as the most interesting people in the world? Consider the following:
  • Their organ donation cards also list their grants.
  • Salmon list them as their emergency contacts.
  • They've brought in over $12 million in grants, which used to be a lot of money.
  • Orca and sand lances live vicariously through them.
  • Our Prosecuting Attorney questions them, just because they're interesting.
Okay, let's expand upon that last point a bit further.  It's not so much that our Prosecuting Attorney questions the Conservation District, it's that he seems to be eager to provide them with free legal advice even though the Conservation District is not part of our County government. As a State agency, the Conservation District is supposed to go to the Attorney General for advice, or hire their own attorney.

Our Prosecuting Attorney doesn't even provide legal advice to the average taxpaying San Juan County citizen, but somehow Zee and Lyshall have been able to get Gaylord to act as the Conservation District legal advisor on occasion (see emails below). How do they do that? How is it that taxpayers can't get legal advice from our Prosecuting Attorney, but the Conservation District is able to get free legal help? Talk about a sweet deal ... the Conservation District doesn't even pay taxes; in fact, they get taxes. The Conservation District meddles in our County affairs; they receive tax money from us; and then on top of that, they get free legal advice from our Prosecuting Attorney too.

It's ... just ... mind ... boggling.

Below are some emails from the Conservation District regarding their involvement with Gaylord. The first email describes the critical assistance the Conservation District received from Gaylord regarding CD plans for an increased tax assessment. The second email is interesting for what it doesn't say. It was redacted because the County claimed attorney-client privilege between the Prosecuting Attorney and the Conservation District. The only trouble with that excuse is that it isn't true. As mentioned, the Conservation District is definitely not the client of our Prosecuting Attorney.

Remember, the Conservation District doesn't always scam people, but when they do, they ... oh who am I kidding, they always scam people.
____________________________________________________________
From: Bruce Gregory <b.gregory@sanjuanislandscd.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re-writing the C.D. Assessment Ordinance!
To: Madrona Institute <ron@madrona.org>

Board,

OH Boy...I am glad I went.  It was Randy only.  Today was the 1st touch meeting. He grabbed me and we had a pre-testimony conference out side the C.C. chamber.  Thank goodness they were running late!
Randy gave the legal background on the issue.  I gave the overview of what we have accomplished already and need to do.

We have had:
Board discussion.  Mimic Island County, .05 per acre.  We have had meeting with Assessor & Treasurer.  They are happy because they will be able to pay for the needed changes in software and implementation with part of the funds collected (as per RCW).

Next steps:

Randy is writing the new C.D. Assessment Ordinance that will update and supersede Ord. # 23-2010.
We should set a date for a public meeting by this Friday.  (For a meeting in Nov.)  I suppose you could roll this into a board meeting but change the location of the meeting like we did in 2010 when this happened for the previous ordinance.  We need two weeks outreach based upon the RCW 89-00-040.  (Although Randy conceded this was out of the time line presented in the RCW which is set up for the usual approach and not a re-active re-authorizing so he was okay with working outside the stated timeline).

We need to make sure we have support in writing from Assessor & Treasurer that this will be a revenue neutral cost .i.e. the added income will pay for the process needed in assessment changes in Treasurer and Assessor office.  This would support Randy's work on the wording.

The second touch is Oct. 29, special Monday C.C. meeting.  I would suspect Randy will have his draft done by then and present it.

So, some timely decisions from the board or Chair, another discussion or two, a public meeting in Nov. 2012.  Remember we have to accomplish this before the end of Dec. 2012 for the 2013 tax year.
Whew....
Click to enlarge. Right click to download.


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #6

When you're pulling a scam, it's a question of timing. Obviously, you wait until the entire plan is cooked and ready to serve, then it's time for the patsy.

For Rosenkotter, Lyshall, and Zee, after you've coordinated with the State, after you've informed the PSP, after you've gotten letters from the tribes, then you invite Jarman and Hughes around for a little "discussion." You present your scheme as a fait accompli ... a done deal ... just sign on the bottom line.

Then, you circle back with Jamie before going before the Council on July 15 and voila, the suckers will never know what hit them. It's just like taking candy from a baby ... or in this case, that might be better put as "taking oversight and millions from the County."

Only it didn't work this time. But the entire Conservation District ploy is an example of how it usually does work around here. By the time "they" reveal their plans to normal folks, the fix is already in. They've been maneuvering for weeks, if not months. They're a dozen steps ahead of everyone else.

If you're in a poker game, and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy. We've been the patsy for a long, long time.
_______________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:46 AM
To: 'llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org'
Subject: RE: Meeting tomorrow?

Are we meeting at Rick's office?

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Linda Lyshall [mailto:llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Barbara Rosenkotter
Subject: FW: Meeting tomorrow?

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rick Hughes [mailto:rickh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:05 AM
To: llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org
Subject: Re: Meeting tomorrow?

Sounds good.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:21 AM, "llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:
>
> Ok. How about if we try to meet just after the picnic around 1:30?
>
>> Linda:
>>
>> Today the schedule is tight. There may be a few minutes after the
>> staff picnic and I will be on the 2:15 boat to Orcas.
>>
>> Not sure of my schedule on 7/3.
>>
>> Rick
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:31 PM, "Linda Lyshall" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org<mailto:llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rick,
>> Barbara Rosenkotter and I would like to meet with you to discuss the
>> fiscal agent for the salmon recovery program. Do you have anytime
>> available tomorrow afternoon or the afternoon of July 3rd?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> Linda Lyshall, District Manager
>> San Juan Islands Conservation District
>> 540 Guard St., Friday Harbor, WA
>> Office: 360.378.6621
>> Cell: 425.478.9131

_______________________________________________________

From: Linda Lyshall <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Bob Jarman
Cc: Barbara Rosenkotter; b.gregory@sanjuanislandscd.org
Subject: RE: Meeting Request

Great. How about 4:00 at our office at 530 Guard Street?

From: Bob Jarman [mailto:bobja@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:13 AM
To: <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org>
Subject: Re: Meeting Request

Next Tuesday works for me just need to know where.

Bob Jarman

On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:44 AM, "Linda Lyshall" <llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org> wrote:

Bob,

Barbara Rosenkotter, Bruce Gregory, and I would like to meet with you to discuss returning the lead entity
program to the Conservation District. I understand that Jamie has this on the agenda for the 15th and I wanted
to give you an opportunity to hear the details ahead of time, and to address any questions you might have.
The best times for us are tomorrow afternoon, anytime between 2:30 and 5:30, or next Tuesday between 4:00
and 5:30. Do either of those times work for you?

Look forward to talking with you,

Linda

Linda Lyshall
District Manager
San Juan Islands Conservation District
540 Guard Street
360‐378‐6621

_______________________________________________________

From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Linda Lyshall (llyshall@sanjuanislandscd.org)
Subject: Fw: Monday

FYI, I left a message last night for Jamie asking about the meeting. I suspected that we may only get through an overview of the various programs vs any decision making, which is probably for the best right now. Please see his response below.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

‐‐‐‐‐Original message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jamie Stephens <jamies@sanjuanco.com>
To: Barbara Rosenkotter <barbarar@sanjuanco.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2013 16:40:36 GMT+00:00
Subject: Monday

The original plan was to discuss the possible move of Salmon Recovery to the Cons. District. However, it is clear that a more basic discussion needs to had about the LIO, MRC, and SR. Roles and responsibilities; where funding comes from; and oversight. As we have discussed, the County doesn’t oversee Salmon Recovery, it just acts as the fiscal agent whereas that role changes with the LIO.

There is a misconception that if SR stays in the County that we will have oversight.

I hope this helps

Jamie

Monday, August 19, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #5

Barbara Rosenkotter keeps in touch with inter-governmental officials with the same unstoppable vigor of a salmon swimming upstream to spawn. We've only shown you a portion of her correspondence with various officials. During the whole time she's been deliberatin' and conjugatin' with the tribes and the Conservation District, she's been keeping the State Lead Entity Program Manager apprised too (Lloyd Moody). She has such a good relationship with Lloyd that she even asks if she can have the Lead Entity contract term changed to fit her schedule better ... because the tribes just aren't moving fast enough for Rosenkotter's liking so that everything can get done by July 1. To paraphrase Lloyd's response to Rosenkotter, "he's on it."

It's marvelous how Rosenkotter is able to keep so many people in the loop ... except our County Council. If you read her email, you will note that she expects to get the County's blessing at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning. Oh wait ... Rosenkotter says that she's talked to one County Councilman who appears to be supportive of the move! Gee, I wonder who that could be?

Everybody's in on this, except Jarman and Hughes. Don't forget to copy Scott Williamson of the PSP too!
________________________________________________________________
From: Barbara Rosenkotter
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:37 PM
To: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO)
Subject: RE: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Thank you!
______________________________________________________
From: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO) [mailto:lloyd.moody@gsro.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Barbara Rosenkotter
Cc: Williamson, Scott (PSP)
Subject: RE: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Barbara –

Thanks for your time on the phone to help me get a more clear picture. I’m on it. I’ll let you know what I uncover, assuming the legislature doesn’t do anything really silly…

Lloyd
___________________________________________________________
From: Barbara Rosenkotter [mailto:barbarar@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:41 AM
To: Moody, Lloyd (GSRO)
Cc: Williamson, Scott (PSP)
Subject: LE Transition - Extend PSAR portion of existing contract?

Lloyd,

FYI, I have one formal letter of support from the San Juan Islands Conservation District indicating their support for being the fiscal agent for the San Juan LE Program. I have requested an updated status from Lummi, Tulalip and Swinomish as to where they are in the process of providing letters of support and so far I have not heard any concerns expressed. And I have also spoken to one San Juan County Council member so far who is supportive of the move.

But it looks like this will continue to be a slow process, so is it possible to extend the PSAR portion of the existing LE contract with San Juan County through September rather than starting a new contract with San Juan County that then has to be redone with the San Juan CD? Seems like that would be the easiest solution.

Then once we have the county’s blessing to move the program then we can start the new contracting with the CD so it is in place when the move is likely to occur, i.e. in August or September.

I had a conversation with Scott this morning and it sounds like he would support this approach. Would this option also work for RCO?

Thanks

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

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The Series - Installment #4

Another day ... another letter from a local tribe to County staffers and the State regarding our County's policy and funding ... with no cc to our Council. Some commenters have wondered, "Was everyone deliberately keeping the Council out of the loop, or was it just an oversight?"

With the email and letter below, we see the Swinomish sending their draft letter to Rosenkotter and Linda Lyshall of the Conservation District for pre-approval. The Swinomish are asking Rosenkotter and Lyshall, "Hey, does this look okay to you?" The Swinomish cc the other two tribes who have sent letters to the State already ... the Lummi and the Tulalip. The Swinomish even cc Ron Zee.

But they don't copy our County Council, which was apparently just the way Rosenkotter and Lyshall wanted it.
_________________________________________________________________

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Click to enlarge. Right click to download.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

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.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Conservation District Watch: The New Assessment

We'll start a series of stories with themes, and one of those themes will be the Conservation District (CD). This current post is mostly meant to clarify the misinformation about the need for a new Conservation District assessment. But before we get to that, I want to assure everyone that the petition to force an election to dissolve the District is alive. Since we last posted about the CD, we have been talking with attorneys about the wording of the petition and related issues. We expect to have petition coordinators on each of the main islands, and we're working towards having a presence at the Fair too (fingers crossed). Unlike County petitions, there is no time limit for gathering petition signatures regarding the Conservation District, so we have time. The questions surrounding the Conservation District break down into three main areas:
  • Are Conservation District elections fair, democrat, and legal? None other than the League of Women Voters came out with a report in 2011 which examined this and related topics. More about that in later posts, but please peruse the link. Moreover, in addition to the grassroots desire to possibly dissolve the Conservation District, there is a related movement building in the San Juans which is asking whether the Conservation District should be sued over their election practices. If you would like to donate to that cause, we will be able to provide a contact shortly.
  • Are Conservation Districts fulfilling their mission, and specifically, is our Conservation District fulfilling its mission? Conservation Districts conjure up images of a bygone era of black-and-white photos of farmers tilling the land and getting assistance from the local agricultural agent ... ya know, Green Acres sort of stuff. But there is a danger when we live with images that are no longer relevant. The recent behavior of the Conservation District, as evidenced by public records requests and personal accounts, suggests our Conservation District isn't your grandfather's Conservation District anymore. It's become the publicly-funded arm of the Stewardship Network and a place for public-private bureaucratic mischief. We can't let sentimentality for a bygone era distract us from the reality of the present.
  • Are Conservation Districts funded legally and are they telling the truth about recent court decisions regarding justifications for new funding? There have been reports recently in the mainstream press about the need for a funding change, so we'll give our view. Also, it appears from public records requests that our Prosecuting Attorney has been providing our Conservation District with legal advice and then subsequently invoking "attorney-client privilege" as justification for extensive redaction of emails between his office and the Conservation District. However, the Conservation District is not part of County government, and the RCW specifically says that if the Conservation Commission (and presumably Districts too) need legal advice they should turn to the State Attorney General's Office. Why is our PA giving legal advice to the CD and then claiming privilege?
Taking the last issue first, what are the facts related to the Conservation District request for more money? The Conservation District, backed by press reports in the San Juan Journal, is saying that their request for more funding is a legal mandate resulting from the State Supreme Court ruling in Carey v Mason.

That's not true.

There are two systems available for fundraising for the Conservation District, assuming the County decides it wants to fund the District at all (and we are not required to do so). We can raise money for the Conservation District via (1) a special assessment (RCW 89.08.400) or (2) a rates and charges method (RCW 89.08.405).

The court ruling in question simply held that Counties that choose the special assessment route have the choice of using (1) a uniform annual per ACRE amount, or (2) an annual flat rate per PARCEL ($5 maximum) PLUS a uniform annual rate per ACRE amount ... in other words, $5 plus ten mills, for example. Nothing binds the County to 5 cents an acre. If the County and Conservation District want to raise money via the special assessment route, they have to follow RCW 89.08.400.

But the County also could decide to use a "rates and charges" system rather than the special assessment. Under a rates and charges method, the County is allowed to impose (1) an annual per acre amount, (2) an annual per parcel amount, or (3) an annual per parcel amount plus an annual per acre amount. Notably, the rates and charges system permits consideration of which properties receive (and which do not receive) the benefit of Conservation District consulting. If the County and the Conservation District want to raise money via the rates and charges method, they have to follow RCW 89.08.405.

In fact, the current $5 per parcel CD fee could remain essentially the same if it were implemented according to the rates and charges method (RCW 89.08.405) instead of via the special assessment method (RCW 89.08.400) as it is now. However, the CD has not proposed rates and charges, they have proposed an increase to the special assessment.

In order to do its job properly, the County Council needs to be provided the full range of options available to it, not just the preferred staff outcome. The same is true for citizens. We are not mushrooms that need to be kept in the dark.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Why Not Get Rid Of The Conservation District?

There is a lot more to be said about the Conservation District. For example, in 2010, our County Council approved a parcel fee lasting 10 years (the maximum length of time allowable) of $5 for every property in the County to fund our Conservation District. Now, the Conservation district is asking for more. They want $5 per parcel plus 5 cents per acre.

Commenters on the last post raised the possibility of gathering petition signatures to hold an election to dissolve the San Juan Islands Conservation District. We think that's a great idea, and a hearty "thank you" to the commenter who suggested it. In response, we offer the following petition sheet for people to use to start gathering signatures. According to the election figures from last April, there are 11,952 voters in our county, and according to RCW 89.08.350, we need 20% of voters to force an election to decide the dissolution matter.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Let's give it a try. We need approximately 2,400 petition signatures. The template below has 20 signatures per page, so we need 120 full pages. Right click to download and print.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Conservation District Ploy

Yesterday afternoon at 1:02 pm the County Council discussed the possibility of moving grant funding for all or part of the PSP LIO/AAOG and AOC together with the MRC and Lead Entity to the CD. Make sense?

This is why the average citizen has no hope of tracking County shenanigans. Even the jargon is an insider's game, and when you add in the artful half-truths and deception that are the hallmarks of our zombie-Friends staffers ... you get an impenetrable web of eco-deceit.

If you watch the linked video, you will see that not even Jamie Stephens (our County Chair) can keep the acronyms and responsibilities straight. He struggles like grasshopper while Barbara Rosenkotter rattles off acronyms and committee names as if she were a shaolin priest of eco-bureaucracy.

The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), which is funded by the State and the Feds, is embodied on the local level by an organization created by our County Council, the Local Implementing Organization (LIO). What does it implement? It is supposed to implement the PSP's Action Agenda for San Juan County, which is the PSP's local plan for cleaning up our local waters. If you actually read the PSP's Action Agenda, you will note that they plan to clean up our local waters by having endless grant-funded coordinating meetings. The LIO is also known as the Action Agenda Oversight Group (AAOG), and so you often see the acronyms LIO and AAOG used interchangeably or written as "LIO/AAOG." Subordinate to the LIO/AAOG are two policy-making bodies:  the Implementation Committee (which helps draft the County Action Agenda) and the Accountability Oversight Committee (AOC), which is a committee comprised of the County in league with the Tribes. Both the County and the Tribes have veto votes regarding policy initiatives associated with the AOC.

Rosenkotter, Lyshall, and Zee hatched a plan to move this alphabet soup out of the County offices and into the enlarged quarters of the Conservation District (CD). In addition, they want to take with them the Lead Entity Coordinator role for salmon recovery (a watershed-oriented program funded by the State). Up until now, this whole shooting match has been jumbled together with the County's Marine Resources Committee (MRC). However, with greater scrutiny being placed on County Advisory Committees, especially the MRC, Rosenkotter, Lyshall, and Zee want to take the meat of the MRC's funding and "authority" and stash it in the Conservation District.

Why should we care?

We should care because these people are sneaky, because they are thinking several steps ahead of the rest of us, and because they have a pervasive influence on the lives of everyone who lives on our shorelines. For example, let's take a look at the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) TACT grant to San Juan County for a moment. TACT stands for "Trouble shooting, Action planning, Course correction, and Tracking and monitoring." Via this grant, the MRC jumble was working in boats with the Friends and armed enforcement officers from the Department of Ecology to map possible shoreline violations. Even Pictometry got mixed up with the activities associated with this grant, since sources suggest that Amy Windrope (from WDFW), Stephanie Buffum (Friends), Rosenkotter, and Lyshall were eagerly anticipating the synergies that would accrue from having Pictometry support the TACT pre-enforcement mapping. The County Council didn't authorize this work, and when certain County staffers threatened to bring these activities to light, their jobs were threatened. These are the kinds of things that happen in our County now when we supposedly have control. What would it be like if these roles and responsibilities were to be splintered?

Although the Conservation District is purportedly a non-regulatory body, the scheming that's going on right now is an effort to transform the Conservation District into grant central for facilitating enforcement actions against shoreline owners. The CD may not do the actual enforcement, but they figure they can support enforcement by others.

Thankfully, at least in the discussion yesterday, Jarman and Hughes saw the ploy for what it was.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

State Of The County


With election results due this week, we think it’s time to review the state of the County.

Over the past couple of weeks, the implementation of the new CAOs has been delayed a full year because no one can figure out what they mean. Even Shireene Hale, who wrote the language in the Ordinances and championed them, admitted in front of the Council that she doesn’t know what certain parts of the CAOs are saying. Despite this, certain of our fellow citizens continue to speak in favor of the new CAOs, as if they understand them better than anyone else. They don’t, and neither do the candidates who have alleged that they are simpler and better than the old/current ones.

The CAOs are still under appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) by the Friends of the San Juans (who urged their approval), the Common Sense Alliance (who did not urge their approval) as well as others. The lawsuit regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations also continues, with a decision expected in the upcoming week about a Motion for Summary Judgement heard in Court on Friday. An appeal of the CRC propositions is still alive too, but will not affect the election this week.

We have a new national monument, the meaning of which (like the CAOs) remains hard to decipher. It was billed as a grassroots effort to protect BLM lands here, but to many, the entire affair looked more like an effort to promote eco-tourism by some of the more prominent and connected eco-glorymongers in the islands.

On election matters, the candidates have raised approximately $110k altogether, with about $73k amassed by the partisan candidates (Pratt - $23k, Byers - $30k, and Stephens - $20k). Trust Islanders, a newly formed non-partisan PAC, has raised about $24k to assist the non-affiliated candidates (whether they want it or not). The non-partisan candidates, collectively, have raised only about $37k.

This election has seen quite a few misstatements by certain candidates in addition to the aforementioned claim that the new CAOs are simple. Jamie Stephens, for example, claimed during the League of Women Voters forums that the County did not add debt during 2012. While the County did refinance some of its debt in 2012, it also added $1.7 million in new general debt too. County budgets are at near all-time highs as well, despite shedding staff over the last few years. Structural cost imbalances also persist since staff payroll costs (which form the bulk of general fund expenditures) continue to grow faster (3% per annum) than the levy lift limit (1% per annum).

Despite the imbalances and the need to add debt, somehow Bob Jean has been able to find about $160,000 in 2013 for highly questionable purposes related to dubious Community Conversations and more advanced aerial photography for our County GIS system.

Committees are still out of control, although the Winter Council has made attempts to get their hands around them.

The Planning Department continues to hire staff, and the unspoken relentless planning vision for our County appears to be to create and staff an Urban Planning Department despite being a rural county.

The Stormwater Program remains confused, purposeless, and expensive.

The Network/Machine continues to thrive and speak out, as is evdent from letters to the editor. It continues to exert itself out of public view too. Ron Zee, head of the Stewardship Network, the Madrona Institute, and the Conservation District, has brought Kyle Loring of the Friends into the Conservation District as an advisor. Word has it that he is about to hire Linda Lyshall into the Conservation District too.

The State of the County? Still rotten ... with plenty of work to do regardless who wins the election.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

All Things Being Equal

One of the commenters to the last post said that we have organizations in this county that look like separate entities A, B, C, and D; but when you look at them more closely, you realize that A=B=C=D=County.

How true.

Over the last few posts, we've been examining the PSP ECONet, which is the same as the Stewardship Network, which we now know receives its funding via the Madrona Institute as of last April.  According to the website of the Madrona Institute:

Program managers at the Madrona Institute include:
Karrie Cooper, Program Manager & Network Coordinator, Stewardship Network of the San Juans, joined the Madrona Institute April 1, 2012, to coordinate the operations and projects of the Madrona Institute-sponsored Stewardship Network of the San Juans.   The Stewardship Network  is a coalition of public and private conservation organizations in the San Juan Islands whose mission is to promote a stewardship ethic in the San Juan Archipelago from land to sea. [Additional biographical info on Karrie Cooper forthcoming.]

The point of our tale is that we have a Network that consists of the County and its most influential committees, the Friends and Kwiaht, the Tourist Boards, various parks and the Conservation District. The people who comprise the Network turn up time and again in all sorts of places from the Planning Commission to political campaigns. For example, consider just Linda Lyshall -- she is a County employee who serves as the coordinator for the MRC. As an MRC member, she's part of the Stewardship Network. She's listed as being on the Advisory Council of the Madrona Institute. She's the Curriculum Committee Chair of Leadership San Juans. In the past, she's also been an employee of the PSP involved with the AAOG/LIO.

The management arm of the Stewardship Network is the Madrona Institute. Its education arm is Leadership San Juans. Its funding arm (or one of its funding arms) is the PSP's ECONet. Its political arm is our local Democratic Party (more on this in a moment). Its economic development arm consists of the parks and Tourist Boards. Its housing arm consists of the various Housing/Land Trusts. The Networkers give awards to one another through various programs such as the Good Steward Awards. And most of our local news outlets, being deeply superficial, never report on the dizzying inter-connections, and so might as well be the Network's Pravda.

If you let it, the Network will tell you how to think (ECONet), educate you (Leadership San Juans), promote a certain type of economy for you (eco-tourism), house you (land/housing trusts), and tell you how to vote. It's a one-stop shop for everything in life, and if you want a job involving "coordination" and "facilitation," you're probably in luck there too. That's why it's so important for the Network to get the right people in power who will keep the grant-based economy flowing. That's why the Network shows up heavily in the campaigns of Byers, Stephens, and Pratt.

Honestly, in all this, I feel as sorry for Democrats as I do for environmentalists. I feel "environmentalism" has been stolen from real environmentalists, and environmentalist issues are simply used now as bait to get a grant and push a planning-based agenda for every facet of life -- because, as we seem to be often told, we need a vast planning infrastructure to ensure positive outcomes. Ugh!! In the same way, I feel planning and coordination Ubercrats have taken over the local Democratic Party, and the Party label is serving the self-interests of the Network leaders. I know many Democrats who feel alienated from the behavior of their local Party leaders.

_____________________________________________________________


From: Nancy DeVaux [mailto:nancy@hometrust.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:46 AM
To: info@stewardshipsjc.org
Subject: membership in the Network

The San Juan Community Home Trust is interested in joining the Stewardship Network. We wondered how we might be able to become a  partner organizations.
We are proud of our efforts to create permanently affordable housing using Low Impact Development and Green Building techniques. One of our major goals is to become the first residential neighborhood in the State of Washington to use reclaimed (treated) wastewater, from our innovative “Living Machine” on-site sewer system,  in toilets and for landscape irrigation.

We’re interested in focusing on this at the County Fair, possibly  in the Stewardship Network area, possibly with the other Community Land Trusts on Orcas and Lopez, that also focus on sustainable development. What would the process for this be?
Thanks for your assistance!
Nancy

Nancy DeVaux
Executive Director
San Juan Community Home Trust
P.O. Box 2603
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Phone: (360)378-5541
Fax: (360) 378-3742




Thursday, January 10, 2013

MRC WTF?

Here's the text of an email to the new Council from a constituent (see below). If you've been following recent events regarding the Marine Resources Committee (MRC), you will have noted that they seem to have a problem with authority, specifically the Council's authority. Back in November, Linda Lyshall of the MRC sat in front of the Council and told them that the MRC reported to the Northwest Straits Commission, not the County Council. Then, in the past week, we find out the MRC has been corresponding with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about fish window closures*, and then cc'ing the Council after the fact.

Business as usual for the MRC.
I apologize for my recent barrage of comments, but given that the Council is addressing the committees issue, I wanted to raise a few more points about the MRC that have troubled me, as a lawyer, for some time.

First, is it true that one of the tribes paid for the MRC coordinator’s salary for 6 months, and if so, isn’t that a conflict of interest, given that the tribes have repeatedly threatened to sue the County if they are not happy with the “all shoreline is critical” and sea level rise provisions that Council enacts?

Second, has the MRC figured out where the $17,000 came from? This money is almost certainly grant funds provided to the County (although I understand that a few dollars may be contributions, which fact raises its own issues—is the MRC authorized to solicit, accept and spend donations?). Grant funds come with obligations that the state and federal governments take seriously, and the County is almost certainly on the hook for them. In my experience, grant funds are tightly supervised and an accounting rendered quarterly or annually, depending on the program.

Third, I did not understand why the MRC sought and why the prior Council granted the MRC $10,000 out of County “rainy day” funds for a coordinator. The MRC is legally authorized to perform two functions, so far as my legal research has gotten: advise Council on marine matters and advise Council on which projects should be funded through the salmon recovery program. The “Lead Entity” coordinator seems to be the natural coordinator for the second responsibility. The MRC members are supposed to be experts in the relevant areas, with the exception of the general citizen member. That being the case, it is a bit puzzling why the MRC would need additional staff support. They already have a third County staffer preparing minutes, which is something else that is puzzling. Based on PRA documents that I have reviewed, I believe that the current MRC coordinator has even undertaken to revise and amplify the “contractual requirements” demanded of the County beyond those originally proposed by the NWSC/Ecology, to include more “work.” Negotiating against the County, as it were. Given the fact that NWSC funding (and most other state and federal funding) is drying up, that does not seem wise, even if allowing a County employee to write his or her own position description ever made sense.

Fourth, the County allocated $10,000 to the MRC conditionally in the 2013 budget, based on what was unearthed about the MRC “mystery” funds recently brought to light. I believe that a decision whether to charge those costs against the MRC mystery funds instead should be teed up before the end of the current 6-month obligation.

Finally, I assume that Council and the Prosecuting Attorney will be conferring on the committee issues. I have raised several and the PA has agreed that, in the two specific cases, the committees had exceeded their authority.
* note the original post said that the letter concerned closures on the west side, whereas the letter actually deals with extending the work window closures in marine areas to protect juvenile salmon. A copy of the letter is available from the linked article in the Island Guardian.