They Should All Take A Sick Day

At this morning's citizen access time, there was an appearance by Shireene Hale, former head planner in charge of our CAOs, and David Dehlendorf, current head of the San Juan County Democratic Party and persistent supporter of Shireene Hale. You can watch their appearances on video at this link.

Now, before we talk about the Hale/Dehlendorf appearances of today, let's walk down memory lane for a moment. When heading up the CAO effort, Hale frequently claimed that the public intimidated her. She referred to some of our CAO public participation meetings as "awful". She even asked sheriff's deputies to show up at public meetings. When a former Planning Commissioner jokingly suggested that she might want to take a "sick day" as a means of avoiding one potentially contentious meeting, Hale accused him of (wait for it) ... intimidation. She also accused a former County Commissioner of intimidation, because of comments he made during a CAO meeting.

The County didn't abandon the "intimidation" angle after Hale left. It was adopted by Gibboney and Mike Thomas in their recent efforts to dump former Building Head John Geniuch. When contractors and other islanders supported Geniuch, the County claimed an angry mob was being organized (yes, Gibboney really did use the words "angry mob" in an administrative law hearing ... but the judge was not persuaded). Gibboney and Thomas took the "intimidation" melodrama so far as to send out an email instructing employees to call the sheriff if John Geniuch was seen on County property.

Okay ... now for the events of today. Hale shows up at citizen access time this morning and says that Pamela Morais (our local County Catbert) and Mike Thomas intimidated her prior to yesterday's public access time. Hale said they pressured her into withholding comments about Portland Fair. Dehlendorf then followed Hale's comments by calling for Mike Thomas to be reprimanded ... even resign, for intimidating a private citizen into silence.

Ever seen that picture of a snake eating itself? Shreene Hale, the woman who invented intimidation as public-participation kryptonite used it in her public comments to accuse her former employer of intimidation tactics that she used when she worked there ... which aforementioned tactics said employer still uses against employees and the public (e.g., Shireene presently).

The ever-composed Mike Thomas, who is accustomed to helping people invent intimidation stories rather than be on the receiving end, found himself out-maneuvered ... caught off-guard. After Dehlendorf finished, Thomas asked to make some comments himself. It stings to be out-smarted by Hale, and it showed in Thomas' comportment. Thomas said he was offended by the public access comments (although he didn't say they were untrue).

In upcoming posts, we'll explore the codependent relationship that has developed between the Council and Mike Thomas. It seems wherever Mike Thomas goes, allegations of misconduct follow. Mike Thomas has now been accused publicly of intimidating private citizens. The Prosecuting Attorney found that he violated County policies and procedures. This, along with other allegations, would appear to violate the County's employment contract with Thomas.

But, we have reached the point in San Juan County where Mike Thomas doesn't just run San Juan County government, he IS San Juan County government. Whatever Mike Thomas says, goes. The job of this Council is simply to back up Mike Thomas. They have given him raises, cleared him of wrongdoing. Mike Thomas is bulletproof. As the Prosecuting Attorney declared when clearing Mike Thomas of Improper Government Action (IGA) in the Portland Fair situation:

Manager has the duty to "comply with all lawful governing body directives, state and federal law, Employer policies, rules and ordinances. ..." See County Manager Employment Agreement and San Juan County Charter Section 4.40 and 4.41. The IGA Report mentions similar obligations of employees in the Personnel Rules Section 15, but the Personnel Rules (which have not been updated since the adoption of the Charter in 2005 or Charter Amendments in 2012) were not written to apply to management level employees and do not apply to the County Manager. See Section 1.010 and Chapter 4 of the 1992 Personnel Rules.

No rules apply to him. This is why Mike Thomas can approve (or disapprove) any wetland study ... or anything else for that matter. He can do whatever he wants, and the Council (and the PA too) have backed him. The dynamic that has emerged within the employment ranks of San Juan County is that if you are loyal to Mike Thomas, your job is safe. If you aren't, you will be eliminated.

Looks like Gibboney is safe.

A Gaggle Of Scandals

Scandals here are de rigeur, and it remains to be seen whether the new Council and Manager can do anything to stop them.

• Planning CAO/SMP Debacle --Virtually this entire blog has been devoted to the CAO/SMP mess. Shireene Hale has been at the center of the ongoing CAO nightmare the entire time. No matter what the GMHB ruling, the Trojan Heron doesn't see much improvement happening to the CAO process unless Hale's involvement is summarily halted. Hale has demonstrated repeatedly that her primary interest, as a planner, is to stop everything. She has displayed outright contempt for public participation too. Colin Maycock is nominally in charge of the SMP, and while he's no Shireene Hale, he has been referred to by Stephanie Buffum as being "on our Team." That does not bode well.

• Public Works and Stormwater -- Speaking of Shireene Hale, her husband, Ed, is in charge of the County Stormwater Program. The County Stormwater Program has been an open sore for years. We could talk about the (non) applicability of the stormwater manual to our rural circumstances, or the murky logic behind the justification for our stormwater utility and fees, but the ire of many citizens is most easily aroused when discussion turns to the Eastsound Stormwater Facility (i.e., the Eastsound mosquito hatchery) or other Public Works stormwater projects ... all typically overbuilt, poorly designed, ugly, grant-funded, and largely useless. Ed Hale appears to have been the mastermind of all of it.

• Public Works Road Projects -- Nearly every new road construction project undertaken by the County in the last few years has been a treatise on mismanagement. For instance, the Lopez Fisherman Bay Road improvement project cost millions of dollars, was way over-budget, required the cutting down of beautiful old trees, necessitated hideous wetland mitigation (Lopez's version of the Eastsound mosquito hatchery), nearly doubled the width of the road ... and at the end of all of the "improving," the speed limit was lowered by ten miles per hour by vote of the County Council that authorized the expensive improvements in the first place.  On Orcas right now, the Mt. Baker Road improvement project is a daily banquet of blunders ... almost severing a high voltage power line, having a road height two feet higher than planned as a result of using LiDAR instead of an actual survey, and having to undertake "unforeseen" wetland mitigation. When finished, Mt. Baker Road will look more like an airport runway than a country lane. And Mt. Baker Road is just a warm up for the Spring Point Bridge project on the west end of Orcas. Responsibility for this maddening empire-building seems to rest squarely on the shoulders of Rachel Dietzman, County Engineer. In the eyes of many, Dietzman is arrogant, incompetent, adversarial, and hell-bent on suburbanizing and highway-izing every charming country road in the county. She also has a penchant for cutting residents off from utility access. Dietzman, whose husband is also on the infamous Marine Resources Committee (MRC), is another one that has to go.

• Conservation District Power Play -- The goal of the Machine during the last election was to take over the County Council while Ron Zee consolidated power at the Conservation District, which is a separate district of State government. The elections didn't turn out as the Machine had planned, but Boss Zee has moved forward with transforming the Conservation District into the pubicly-funded Kaaba of the Friendly Machine, with all the grant corruption that goes along with it. Zee's idea is to take grants away from the County and funnel them through the Conservation District instead. Zee is moving forward with transferring responsibilities for the Salmon Lead Entity, the LIO/AAOG, the Marine Resources Committee, and parts of the Agricultural Resources Committee. Already, the Conservation District has moved into new larger digs, hired Linda Lyshall, designated an office for Barbara Rosenkotter, raised the specter of appointing Kyle Loring as an associate (unelected) Board member, and made big plans for itself ... unilaterally ... without informing the County that it's taking money, programs, and people away from them.

And there are other scandals, such as staff who lie to Council ... unmitigated conflicts of interest ... and threats of retaliation to employees who attempt to make things better.

We'll be elaborating on each of these areas in the coming days.

Shireene Hale's Pattern Of Behavior

Yesterday, the Council selected Michael Thomas as the new County Manager.  Thomas is from King County and has a planning background. Mr. Thomas, you have your work cut out for you because our Planning Department functions like a rogue government within a government, with a functional head who openly despises public participation and dissent.

In the email below (from a year ago), Hale discusses her reaction to a CAO public meeting that was, from our perspective, one of the greatest meetings from a public participation standpoint. It was one of the worst from the standpoint of the reaction of public officials.

Once again, Shireene Hale thinks dissent is violence. Someone who regularly cannot tell the difference between dissent and violence may not be stable enough to deal with the public, and perhaps we should be concerned about her reactionary behavior or the irrational steps she might take.

Who is the threat here? It makes me wonder whether Hale will start coming to meetings armed and dangerous. In more ways than one, we need protection from Hale.

From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:54 AM
To: Colin Maycock; Jon Cain; Lovel Pratt; Patty Miller; Pete Rose; Randall Gaylord; Rene Beliveau; Richard Fralick; Shireene Hale
Subject: Agenda for Monday CAO Implementation Team meeting?

Good morning,

What do you all have for agenda items for the Monday CAO/SMP Implementation team meeting? Colin will not be attending as he will be in Costa Rica.

At this point I have two items:

*         Conduct of public meetings on CAO and SMP.

*         Alternatives for getting the wetland and fish and wildlife regulations through the approval process.

Conduct of Public Meetings

On the conduct of public meetings, I would like to discuss options for ensuring that our citizens, staff, consultants, Council and Planning Commissioners do not feel threatened or intimidated, and to ensure that comments are focused on the issues, and not on blaming or attacking individuals. Problem meetings in the past few months include the last three Planning Commission meetings (particularly the March 6 meeting), the San Juan town hall meetings, and the Orcas SMP meeting.

For those that have not heard, we are aware of two separate instances of people discussing the use of guns. One was a warning from someone that works at the Orcas fire station, the other was a conversation overhead on the ferry. Chances are nothing will happen, but given the way John Evans and others are stirring up fear, hatred and hostility, and given some of the testimony we heard on March 6, I don't think the possibility of violence should be dismissed. 

In addition, prior to the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, Gordy Peterson suggested to Janice  that she should consider calling in sick rather than attend the meeting, because "it was going to be ugly". This may constitute intimidation of a public servant under RCW 9A.76.180 and 9A.04.110. Given everything that is going on, it was intimidating to those of us charged with running the meeting. 

Alternatives to help with the public meetings include:

*         A clear statement from our leaders (Patty and/or the full Council ?) assuring people that we will get through this and that their comments are being considered. Other topics that could be touched on include reassuring people that if their house burns down, they will be able to replace it; that we are doing are best to keep costs down; that we are trying to find the least intrusive approach that will pass muster with the Growth Board; that what we are trying to develop is a moderate approach that is more fair and tied to the current science than the Ecology recommended regulations; that we are all friends and neighbors, and though we may disagree it is important to be civil and respectful of one another so that all points of view can be heard, and so that people don't feel intimidated; that we will try to find the resources to refine
the wetland map so that is does not show man made ponds that are not wetlands; and encourage people to read the proposals for themselves, rather than believing what others are telling them. 

*         Do what we can to get through the rest of the process in as efficient a manner as possible, to remove the anxiety associated with uncertainty.

*         Consider holding a joint PC/ CC hearing on the fish and wildlife amendments, to provide the staff and Planning Commission, and particularly the Planning Commission chair, with some additional support, and to help move the amendments along through the process. 

*         Hold all meetings in the Council chambers so that they can be live streamed. If F&W is a joint hearing with the Council, perhaps testimony could be taken from the Orcas and Lopez libraries (we don't have the capacity to do it without assistance and another staff person).

*         Consider having a deputy present for the hearings/ meetings. We have been trying to avoid this - but it may be time to give it serious consideration.

*         Consider developing clear expectations of conduct, enforced by the chair, and let everyone know what they are and what will happen if they are not followed. I suggest that clapping, jeering, cheering, and statements that are focused on individuals rather than issues not be tolerated. Options include asking individuals to leave, and if the Planning Commission/ Council are in deliberations (testimony is not being accepted), if necessary the room can be cleared so that deliberations can continue without the disruptions.

Adoption Process for Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Amendments

Regarding the approach for getting through the remainder of the process, following is a schedule I sent to Patty yesterday.

Wetland Amendments

April 23 - Signed PC draft of wetland amendments and staff report submitted to Council.

May 1 - First touch to review PC recommended draft, findings and recommendations (including the  recommendation for a conference call between the Council, Dr. Adamus and Dr. Mayer, to discuss whether we are properly applying Mayer et al. 2007, and to consider using a paper by Xuyang Zhang et al. (2010) as a guide to buffer width, rather than Mayer
et al.)

May 7 - field trip (may be just wetlands - if we can get the F&W draft out prior to then, could be both wetlands and F&W).

May 9 - publish hearing notice

May 21 or 22 - CC hearing on wetlands (half day?)

??? - deliberations (probably need a full day)

F&W Amendments

Prior to June 20 - release hearing draft and publish notice.

July 9 or 10 - Joint PC/CC hearing, with PC deliberations in July, followed by CC deliberations. If necessary CC can hold another hearing on another draft prior to consistency review. (Note: I am out of town on vacation June 18 through July 4).

Note: Having a joint hearing does a couple of things. This is likely to be a difficult hearing and it provides the Planning Commission and CD&P staff some support that they don't normally have. It also helps us get through the steps in a more efficient manner. 

Please let me know if you have additional items for discussion.

Shireene

Is Shireene Hale The New Jon Shannon?

Most of us probably remember Jon Shannon, the former head of Public Works. During his tenure, the solid waste situation in these islands grew progressively more bizarre, as well as expensive. It seemed like every solid waste solution ever proposed by Shannon involved making the program more affordable by making it bigger and more expensive. He led us through a costly planning process to relocate the San Juan Island transfer station, an effort that eventually failed when it ran headlong into a buzzsaw of public opposition. He borrowed heavily and regularly to keep the solid waste system afloat. His presentations to the Council often contained basic mathematical errors that no elected official ever caught. He needlessly caused compliance issues and then informed on himself, cutting the roof off the San Juan Island transfer station and subsequently notifying Ecology that we didn't meet stormwater requirements because of it.

Until his final days, he received (however begrudgingly) support from the Council. Even after Shannon had left, the Council still followed his agenda for a while by putting forward a solid waste tax and spending plan patterned after Shannon's philosophy that "more is better." It wasn't until the grandiose solid waste tax plan got shellacked at the polls in 2011 that the Council finally got the message.

Now we seem to be afflicted by another bureaucrat who believes that "more is better." She receives, however begrudgingly, steady support from the Council. She leads a byzantine County program that is as bizarre as it is expensive. In the clip below, you'll see her say that we have to keep her around because, as long as she's here, she can explain the CAOs to everyone else, even though in the last post we saw her admit that she doesn't fully comprehend them. Maybe we should dub the CAOs the "Shireene Area Ordinances," since having been made in Shireene Hale's image, they are both unintelligible and presumptuous.

In the clip, you will hear Hale say, for the umpteenth time, that the CAOs are complicated because we have adopted a site-specific approach. That is a complete red herring. For the umpteenth time, we will say in reply that we do not have site-specific CAOs. We have CAOs that are pointless because they are based on meaningless cherry-picked site variables, leading to a result that cannot be understood even by those who crafted them.

CAO Hit Parade

The election may be over, but we're still trapped in the train wreck that is the CAOs. In honor of the election, let's play some CAO greatest hits. The clip below is from April 9, 2013. Shireene Hale (who championed the CAOs) confesses that she doesn't understand them.

It seems like the standard excuse put forward by Hale and others is that the CAOs are complicated because they are site specific. Not true, even though Hale uses this very excuse in the video. They are not site specific. They are just pointlessly bureaucratic and off the mark.


And Hale's view appears to be in contradiction to that of candidate (at the time) and Councilman Jamie Stephens from just 4 days earlier as he appeared in a campaign event. To us, looks like McClerren's take on the CAOs was much closer to the truth than that of Stephens.

Mirror Mirror ... Who Remembers The Least Of All

In one of the recent pleadings regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit, there is a declaration from a paralegal who has gone to the effort of quantifying the level of non-responsiveness of our public servants.

Before we get to the tally, for the sake of background, remember that the OPMA states the following:

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

"Governing body" is "the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or
takes testimony or public comment."

"Action" is "the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance."

"Meeting" means "meetings at which action is taken."

Remember, too, that there is no dispute about whether the CAO Committee meetings took place in secret. They did. The dispute concerns the content of the meetings. The position of the participants is that they only discussed scheduling and not more substantive matters, despite documentary evidence (notes and emails) to the contrary.

When questioned about the meetings, this is how the deponents remembered (or did not remember) events.

• Lovel Pratt was deposed on January 3, 2013, and she expressed 67 denials of knowledge (63 "I don't recall", 4 "I don't know")
• Richard Fralick was deposed on January 3, 2013, and he expressed 22 denials (21 "I don't recall", 1 "I don't know")
• Patty Miller was deposed on January 4, 2013, and she expressed 63 denials (51 "I don't recall", 12 "I don't know")
• Shireene Hale was deposed on January 17, 2013, and she expressed 100 denials (52 "I don't recall", 31 "I don't know", 17 "I just don't have a specific recollection")

Mirror, mirror on the wall ... who remembers the least of all? Looks like it's Hale, followed by Pratt, Miller, and then Fralick.

Quick Lawsuit Update

This is just a brief post to update everyone on a promise we made a couple of weeks ago. Back on January 12, we mentioned that the depositions of some members of the CAO Implementation Committee (Lovel Pratt, Richard Fralick, Patty Miller, Shireene Hale) might soon be available.

We have since discovered that the depositions of those participants in alleged secret meetings are technically still open. While they each have been deposed once already, they may be called back. As scheduled, Shireene Hale was deposed last Thursday. Pratt, Fralick, and Miller were deposed previously (in that order). Now, the plan is to depose Deputy Prosecutor Jon Cain next. Yes, that's right ... one of our Deputy Prosecutors allegedly took part in the alleged secret meetings. It's messy.

Cain's deposition will be interesting ... having our own Prosecuting Attorney's Office deposed in a case being defended by our Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Stay tuned, but there won't be any detailed word on the content of the depositions while they remain open. The press release associated with the lawsuit (and fundraising associated with the lawsuit) can be found in our posting from January 12.

CAO Theme Song

Gibberish and a whole lot of pointless activity. I finally found a song that is worthy of being the theme song of our Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs). See the YouTube video link at bottom of post. If you watch the video very closely, you can almost make out Fralick, Miller, Pratt, Rosenfeld, and Stephens cavorting with glee over having rammed the CAOs through.

According to a report about the song on National Public Radio,

In November 1972, Italian pop star Adriano Celentano released a song that hit No. 1 in his home country, despite the fact it wasn't performed in Italian.

It also wasn't performed in English.

In fact, it wasn't performed in any language at all.

The song, called "Prisencolinensinainciusol," was written to mimic the way English sounds to non-English speakers.

"Ever since I started singing, I was very influenced by American music and everything Americans did," [Celentano] tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered, through interpreter Sim Smiley.

"So at a certain point, because I like American slang — which, for a singer, is much easier to sing than Italian — I thought that I would write a song which would only have as its theme the inability to communicate," he says. "And to do this, I had to write a song where the lyrics didn't mean anything."

"Prisencolinensinainciusol" is so nonsensical that Celentano didn't even write down the lyrics, but instead improvised them over a looped beat. When it was first released in 1972, Celentano says no one noticed it. But that didn't stop him from performing it several years later on Italian television. The second time was the charm: it immediately became No. 1 in Italy, as well as France, Germany and Belgium.

But is that really what American English sounds like?

"Yes," he says. "Exactly like that."

To us, it just sounds like the CAOs. Below are a few more select quotes from various parts of just the General Section (emphasis added).

Regarding the Reasonable Use Exception
The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide adequate information for the director to make a finding of compliance with the requirements of this subsection (D). 

Who Needs to Undergo Critical Area Review?
Critical Areas. This section outlines the process for reviewing projects to identify Critical Area requirements that apply under SJCC 18.30.110 through 18.30.160 (Critical Area regulations). Unless exempt under SJCC 18.30.110, prior to removal of vegetation or site disturbance, all development activities and vegetation removal requiring a project permit or development permit, review or approval under other sections of County Code, must undergo this review. Prior to approval, sufficient information must be provided to demonstrate compliance with SJCC 18.30.110-160. Any illegal degradation of protected Critical Areas must be mitigated and if mitigation is not completed prior to issuance of permits, a financial guarantee must be provided.

Are Current Uses Protected?
Uses and activities may be continued, replaced with other uses or activities, or relocated, provided, any required project or development permits are obtained, and there is no increase in the magnitude of adverse impacts to water quality or the functions and values of critical areas. Relocation of any use or activity in this area shall be reviewed as a provisional use.

Who decides whether your existing uses or activities may be increasing the "magnitude of adverse impacts to water quality or the functions and values of critical areas?" Short answer -- not you!

Iceberg Government

Who runs this County? Is it the people we elect? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Many of the posts on this blog present evidence of how this County operates. We've shown emails of public officials and contractors conspiring to avoid public participation. We've seen State officials tell whopping lies. We have accounts from former citizen-committee members about being led around by the nose by staff and consultants.  We've watched consultants dodge questions and ignore evidence contradictory to their recommendations. We continue to hear double-talk, such as the State contending it has no authority over the CAOs yet the Council uses them as a scare tactic. Latest case in point, we currently hear some existing Council members saying that they have to pass the CAOs otherwise the State will slap a building moratorium on us.

A building moratorium? For what? As a penalty for all the horrible pollution here?

Threats. Sometimes our government seems to be nothing more than a network of bullies insisting that the public be ignored. Along those lines, the latest veiled threat from the Friends came out in the past few days. You can read Kyle Loring's buzzword-laden diatribe here, which combines several environmental themes shotgun style in an effort to strike a chord with the public on something ... anything. Having trouble getting traction on your CAO position?  Mix in a little coal outrage and re-launch.

Let's look at one of Loring's CAO comments:

San Juan County is on the verge of adopting one of the weakest critical areas ordinances in the Puget Sound region. The ordinance’s buffers are designed to allow 40 percent of all local pollution into our streams, lakes, and seas.

This is akin to saying we have the weakest air pollution laws in the region because 100% of our air is allowed to flow unfiltered into our lungs and homes. It's like saying that we have the weakest food laws in the region because we are allowed to eat 100% of the produce from our gardens. We have some of the weakest standards for public responsibility in the region because we let our grant-funded local environmental non-profits baldly misinform and conspire against us.

When our local smoking-gunners can't rely on authenticated facts or sound logic, they rely on their network to back them up. That brings us to "iceberg government," which is the term I've coined for the unseen people and organizations who really wield power here. They drown out and "out-consensus" the views that conflict with their bureaucratic self-interests. They freeze out the public good.

As a summa graduate of Bowdoin, Loring might claim some familiarity with icebergs (Bowdoin alums are known as "polar bears"), and he might even claim some experience with environmental truth. Here's a clip from Bowdoin's Kent Island Research Station from 1998.

Kyle Loring ('98) conducted an experiment to test whether false eye-spots taped to the back of a hard hat truly deter Herring Gulls from dive-bombing. To my surprise, after exposing himself to daily systematic walks through the gull colony, he found no difference in the frequency of attacks or the number of direct hits with or without eye-spots -- it appears that we may have been fooling ourselves into thinking that the eye-spots conferred some protection. He did document, however, that most attacks come from behind (60%) or the side (35%) vs. the front.

Maybe his research gave Loring insight into how to conduct attacks regarding the CAOs (i.e., approach issues obliquely, from behind or from the side, not head on), but I prefer to think that it might offer a clue as to why Loring's arguments customarily lack cogency (too many blows to the head?).
____________________________________________________

Omnishambles: Where Do We Stand?

The word "omnishambles" has been chosen as the 2012 word of the year by the Oxford University Press. It means "a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged by a string of blunders and miscalculations." With a nod to GBS's adage that Great Britain and the US are two nations separated by a common language, I would like to point out that over here we know "omnishambles" as the "CAOs."

So, where do we stand on our omnishambles?

The final hearing of the CAOs is scheduled for November 27, according to a recent email from Shireene Hale (see below). Can final approval by our current Council be far off? If so, it would be 11th-hour approval by a Council configuration rejected by voters, half of whose members are lame ducks, two of whom where voted out of office, and three of whom are being sued for OPMA violations.

They haven't listened to us yet. Why would they start now?
________________________________________________

Hello,

The final hearing on San Juan County’s critical area regulations is scheduled for Tuesday, November 27 at 10:45 a.m. Copies of the hearing notices and the four ordinances are posted at:  http://www.sanjuanco.com/cao/documents.aspx

Kind Regards,
Shireene Hale

Smoking Gunners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven't done the logic model yet. 

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #62 - Rotten from the Inside Out

The emails below illustrate several aspects of our grant economy at work, but the point to emphasize in this posting is that the County GIS data has been completely corrupted by insider, grant-driven, back-room power politics with inherent conflicts of interest. While there may be questionable public participation about ordinances (see CAPR lawsuit), the real work of assembling the faux data that will be used to accuse us of eco-crimes under the CAO/SMP occurs in a subterranean world where there is no chance of public scrutiny. That insider world is run by low-level government functionaries, unelected appointees, the Friends, and their allies ... and they serve no one but themselves.
_________________________________________________________________

From: Jeff Hanson <IMCEAEX-_O=SAN+20JUAN+20COUNTY_OU=SJC_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JEFFH@exmx.net>

Date: May 31, 2011 11:32:31 AM PDT

To: Katrina Hoffman <kathoff@u.washington.edu>

Subject: RE: response to Stephanie

Hi Kat,

I think there is a little bit of terrain to carefully negotiate here. Backing up to the stated goal of the Green Shores project to create a structure and some capacity in County government to at least be an integral part of the ultimate Green Shores program in SJC, we need to focus our efforts there. As Stephanie correctly notes, The MRC has indeed contracted with the Friends a number of times for projects that resulted in excellent data that has become part of the County's GIS system and used in the development of regulations such as CAO and SMP. The negotiating needs to be around the fact that another important arm of the organization is as a strong advocate for the environment and as a litigator, too (sometimes with, and sometimes against, the County) and, for some, the County's credibility would be called into question if the two seem too close.

So, for now, I think a response should concentrate mostly on being appreciative of the likelihood of using some of the obvious overlapping opportunities for match and for the use of the data created through projects dome by the Friends, and for future data and consultations as well. We have more work to do to determine future steps and involvement in the project and the Friends' work and data will definitely kept in mind. The County needs to have a seat at the table as incentives are discussed, and needs to be seen as leading on this (if that can happen!)

My next step needs to be, with your help,  to consolidate these ideas for match, making sure it looks like a good balance, and get it to Shireene to get to the County Administrator so we can get the MOA completed.

I'm on my off day today, on the ferry, but will get back to you tomorrow about this.

I hope this helps. Feel free to write for clarification, etc.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Katrina Hoffman [mailto:kathoff@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Fri 5/27/2011 5:05 PM
To: Jeff Hanson
Subject: response to Stephanie

Hi Jeff,

Is the sort of response I crafted to Stephanie below appropriate, or
should I back off with the historic explanation and just acknowledge
receiving the info she sent? I don't want to overstep boundaries. Let
me know.

-Kat

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for all this! It'll be helpful with posing SJC's match
alternatives to EPA. Regarding your comment about inclusion (or lack
thereof) of FSJ in scoping, etc. of the project, I agree, it is
unfortunate. It seems like things moved really fast around application
time (when the proposal was submitted); but the MRC was aware of the
opportunity and since FSJ has folks on the MRC, that would have been
the most likely opportunity for both parties to engage in some cross-
talk at that point in time. I don't know to what extent that happened
between Mary and various entities around the County (other than the
County itself as a collaborator). It sounds like talking about how FSJ
could benefit from the grant in exchange for matching activities is a
conversation that could happen with the County along with your
conversation about contributing matching exercises, but it's not
something over which I have decision-making authority. That said, your
acknowledgment of how and where FSJ's recent and upcoming initiatives
are strongly aligned with the Green Shores for Homes grant is much
appreciated, and it sounds like they will help the County achieve some
of the milestones in the grant.

On May 27, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Stephanie Buffum wrote:

Hi Jeff and Kat!

Based on my review of this grant, it appears that you will be using data and work products primarily from FSJ projects including:

Shoreline Modification (for shoreline characterization),  Wild Salmon Project (aka PILA Pulling It All Together); countywide feederbluff assessment (joint MRC/FSJ/SJI); Bullitt Project (modeling sea level rise on shorelines; and land owner outreach);Tulalip (pending).

1.       Feeder bluff ($20-60,000 thru 2011) - landowner workshops and newsletter materials etc.

2.       Bullitt (runs July 2010-July 2011) $10,000

3.       PIAT - PSAR (Nov 2010-2012) $50,000

4.       Tulalip ($15,000 -pending) Technical assistance/education

Potential match: $145,000 (depending on start date of grant). The longer this waits, the less match available.

Rationale for including FSJ in this grant.

San Juan County is a rural island county of 16,000 residents located in the most western limits of Washington State.  San Juan Counties geography makes data collection challenging for state agencies who cannot afford to conduct marine research projects in the San Juans.

For decades the State has left many data gaps unfilled for lack of funding to survey San Juan County.  The county, like so many rural counties, lacks a department of natural resources. Any significant marine research study or shoreline characterization has been done by not-for-profit organizations, Conservation Districts or staff from the University of Washington Friday Harbor Labs or Washington State University, or tribes. For the past decade, Friends of the San Juans, an IRS not-for-profit has secured funding to ensure that comprehensive data for San Juan County data was  collected on critical marine species, nearshore marine habitats, and nearshore geomorphic habitat forming processes.  These research projects included county-wide assessments for forage fish, eelgrass, feederbluffs, kelp, shoreline modifications, and salmon habitat in the San Juans.)  All data followed state protocols for collection and many of these projects involved an educational and public outreach component.

Friends of the San Juans has extensive experience managing county scale habitat assessment and mapping projects, as well as spatially explicit analyses and the application of results to improved protection and restoration. Friends of the San Juans has also worked with community groups to protect and restore nearshore habitat.

Friends of the San Juans laid the framework for this project with many of their previous projects in which they partnered with San Juan County through the San Juan County Salmon Recovery Program which San Juan County Department of Planning oversees.

Friends of the San Juans has been filling the natural resource planning and management gap for San Juan County for 32 years.  We have developed a professional working relation with county, state and tribal partners, and we have provide the County with 10 years of mapping our most critical nearshore marine resources.

General Observations:

There will be much cross walking and data harvesting that FSJ will be needed to translate. It is unfortunate that FSJ wasn't included in the initial scoping of this project, as it builds on most  of our work products. That said, this is water under the bridge and we are committed to ensuring that our data can inform this process in the best way possible from this moment forward.  Perhaps some pots can be used to pay FSJ as "sub contractors" or as "experts" for our time in assisting you all with data organization, interpretation and harvesting. We certainly want to keep as much $ and data in San Juan County. We can certainly make the match without too dependency on our Canadian counterparts.   I would like to ensure that the data is always created in a manner that is consistent and compatible with the San Juan County GIS database maintained by Public Works.

Stephanie@sanjuans.org

360 378-2319 office

360-472-0404 cell

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #61 - County Mixins'

For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, "mixins" is what some ice cream shops call the toppings (peanuts, M&Ms, etc.) that a customer can choose to have "mixed in" with their ice cream scoop. However, it might also refer to the modus operandi of our various County officials.

As we saw in the last post, despite the fact that our Auditor is an independently-elected public official, and instead of exercising independent discretion with respect to the economic consequences of Council activities (e.g., the CAOs), she has gone out of her way to put forward Council views on the CAO. From my view, our Auditor has become a participant in the process rather than an independent evaluator of facts.

And that brings us to the lawsuit filed by the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) against the County over the CAO process. The lawsuit alleges two causes of action:

• Meetings (of the CAO Implementation Committee) were held without notice or minutes and closed to the public.
• The County's continuing failure to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (including its public participation requirements) must be enjoined.

One of the difficulties to be worked out on the lawsuit is the status of our Prosecutor's office. Our Prosecuting Attorney is charged with defending the lawsuit; however, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Jon Cain, was a standing member of the CAO Implementation Committee. There is a potential conflict, and the Prosecuting Attorney might be called as a witness.

Regardless of how that is worked out, the participation of the Deputy Prosecutor in months (if not years) of meetings as an apparent participant in a legislative committee, just serves to further illustrate the "mixins" that are part of our local government. It seems like one more example of group think instead of independence of mind.

Despite the fact that three Council members have been named in a lawsuit regarding the CAOs and the CAO process, the Council appears determined to continue moving ahead with its approval of the CAOs. It would come as no surprise if we were to learn that everyone were of one mind about that.

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #59 - Left Hand, Meet Right Hand

The proposed CAOs are not just a badly written law based on bad "science" and flawed premises.  In addition, they will make us even more the vassals of an incompetently run local government. Now, I am not saying that all County employees are incompetent. Far from it. However, I think our County is managed incompetently. Often, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

The confusion surrounding the "dismissal" of Maureen See is a recent case in point. What is her status? No one seems to know. Her dismissal was announced 11 days ago. At first, she was "fired." Then, we were told that she was placed on "administrative leave," but in reality, she was placed on administrative leave only for one week, to be followed by subsequent termination. It's been more than one week now, but the County has not clarified her situation, not even to Ms. See or her attorney.

What is going on? As press stories have pointed out, See allegedly ran afoul of a law that often involves a simple reprimand. Moreover, other than an occasional posted memo or a broadcast email from the County Administrator, there was no dissemination of a County policy or related employee training about appropriate behavior.  So how were employees to know what might constitute behavior that "crossed the line"?

And as has come to light since See's "termination," it appears Howie Rosenfeld also may have been violating the same law for months. Then his wife endorses him in his election bid, not in her individual capacity, but as mayor of Friday Harbor, which many people feel is yet another violation of the same law because she is using her elected office as the platform for her endorsement. 

It's just a mess of double standards, but it's no surprise. That's just the way this place works.

If you get caught in a similarly capricious vortex for CAO matters, you'll have to pay $2300 just to appeal the allegations made against you. It is a strange world we live in when filing an appeal in Washington State Courts costs $280, filing an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals costs $450, filing an appeal to the United States Supreme Court costs $300, but filing an appeal for land use determinations in San Juan County is $2300.

Back from Siberia ... Figuratively Speaking

Hello friends and fans!  Many apologies, but the Trojan Heron was quite literally working on some explosive stories in other parts of the State for several days ... and it lasted longer than anticipated.

We're back with new posts later today.  Although the Trojan Heron's attention was diverted elsewhere, the steady drumbeat of hypocrisy, bias, and bad thinking continues in our County unabated.  There is so much to comment on:

• County employees being fired for campaign/personal use of computers, and County Councillors doing nearly, if not exactly, the same thing. And incredibly, the County lies about the termination, calling it administrative leave. That's one more example of our County's long-standing commitment to truthiness.
• The Friday Harbor Mayor endorses her husband for Council. What took her so long? Was she undecided up until the past week? Since this was a mayoral endorsement, can she issue the endorsement from her Town email?
• CAPR files a lawsuit dealing with procedural aspects of the CAOs, and nary a mention of it by the Council (although it was printed in the Island Guardian and San Juan Islander).  If a lawsuit falls in a wood, and there are no Councillors around to acknowledge it, does it exist?  
• The County issues a budget document that reads like a political propaganda hit piece sprinkled with a few numbers. Did Bob Jean really write that or is he being the mouthpiece for others in the County?

And ballots are out!  All that plus what Karl Popper would think of Dr. Adamus, Shireene Hale, our Council, and the CAOs ... plenty to talk about. 

We're baaaaAAAACK!!!

Is this who wrote the County propaganda ... er, I mean ... County budget document?

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #58 - Stroke Politics

Most of us know that our County opted to "fully plan" back in 1990 when Bruce Orchid, Tom Cowan, and Bill LaPorte voted to fully opt-in to the GMA provisions. CAOs are required whether we fully plan or not, but by opting-in, we subjected ourselves to the jurisdiction of the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).

We keep hearing about the many forms of eco-corruption here in our County and State, ranging from hypocrisy and undue influence to outright government scandals. One of the best descriptions of corruption related to the GMHB comes from the webpages of David Spring, Democratic candidate for the State Legislature. He alleges bribery and scandal associated with Gregoire's appointment of Republican Cheryl Pflug to the GMHB, which many believe was a political stunt for buying off a Republican so that Republicans would not gain control of the State Senate. Spring lays out 20 evidence-backed reasons for why Gregoire's appointment of Pflug was illegal. No one looks good in this mess.

This report details 20 facts which taken together prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this was a million dollar bribe which was arranged more than 3 years ago by Governor Gregoire and Senator Pflug.

In some locales, this sort of thing is known as stroke politics or parish-pump politics. It's when a politician pulls a self-serving stunt in order to win an election. It's trading favors and buying people off, frequently related to a parochial issue rather than the overall public good.

Look at David Sping's website. It's one heckuva read from a very courageous guy.

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #57 - No Public Allowed

For months, three County Council members and several County staff met as part of the CAO Implementation Committee. At first, based upon an initial analysis from the Prosecuting Attorney that some have called ludicrous, the Council mistakenly believed the Committee could hold private (non-public) meetings since only three members of the Council were present. However, after taking a second look at the matter several months later, Randy Gayord subsequently concluded that three Council members did constitute a quorum for taking negative action (i.e., blocking an ordinance), and so the CAO Implementation Committee meetings had been held in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).

Of course, by that time, months of meetings had already transpired, and on top of that, there were scores of emails involving three Council members, each email thread itself could potentially be construed as a violation of the OPMA since discussion took place and actions were taken. In an effort to minimize the apparent damage, Council Chair Miller tried to explain that nothing substantive was discussed during the CAO Implementation Committee meetings, only scheduling matters (see email below). However, the trail of emails tells a very different story. The CAO update process was discussed, matters relating to buffers, the SMP Inventory and Characterization Report, Ecology letters, and who knows what else.

There is simply no easy way to fix that blunder. It's a fatal flaw associated with the proposed CAO.

I get the feeling that the stench of death surrounding the proposed CAOs is beginning to become noticeable, even to some of the Council members. Privately, I understand some of the key players are starting to distance themselves from it, saying, for example, that they never liked the "site-specific" approach in the first place. Had they ever developed a site-specific approach, that complaint might be more credible. But don't confuse whining for outright opposition to the CAOs. Feeling as if there is nowhere else to go and having a dearth of courage, Council members are likely to vote for the CAOs while simultaneously distancing themselves from it, which is a position that only a politician could grasp.

It seems that even the local union branch of County employees, Local 1849, may be growing tired of the shenanigans of our elected leaders.  As a case in point, the Local has not endorsed either of the incumbents seeking re-election, but they have endorsed Marc Forlenza, who is running against Councilman Howie Rosenfeld.

Not much time now before our current Council votes on the CAO. At this point, hardly a soul cares for it, but like some over-budget nuclear power plant, the Council is fixated on the sunk costs and feels they must finish it.  Best just to toss it to Randy Gaylord and hope for the best. Handing it off to Gaylord may be a fitting event, not because he's the Prosecuting Attorney, but because he's also the coroner, and the proposed CAO is so flawed that it's dead on arrival.

______________________________________________________________

From: Patty Miller [mailto:PattyM@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:31 PM
To: debbie@commonsensealliance.net
Cc: Pete Rose; Shireene Hale
Subject: CAO Implementation Committee Meetings

Ms. Dickinson,

I believe you made a request to be notified of when and where the CAO Implementation Committee meetings are taking place.  The Committee meets very infrequently (generally less than once per month) and we do not have any future meeting scheduled at this time.  Historically we have not opened these meetings to the public since there is not a quorum of the council, any staff recommendations are discussed in open Council meetings, and these meetings are primarily just focused on coordinating
schedules and timing.    It would be up to the group to reconsider this
practice.

Thank you,

Patty Miller
Chair - San Juan County Council

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #56 - Council Doesn't Give a Damn

This blog has talked about many instances where our CAO process has gone astray, but I was reminded of how early this corruption began when I happened to look back at the public participation plan for the CAOs from the time when the update process was initiated back in 2006. One of the first components of the public participation process was described as:

March 31, 2006 the County and Friends of the San Juans sponsored a one day seminar on updating critical areas ordinances. Speakers included representatives of State and local agencies with relevant expertise.

Back then, the County didn't even try to hide their association with the Friends. They openly memorialized it in their plans. These days, instead of showing joint advocacy with the Friends, the County prefers to practice virulent dismissiveness of everyone else. No matter what the criticisms of the prospective CAOs, the Council just presses on, ignoring it all. They put their heads down and hope for the best.

For example, the Council has not considered the Minority Reports of the Planning Commission, and doesn't appear to have any intention of doing so. Perhaps that's because the Minority Reports have been just as critical of the CAO process as the CAOs. For example, the Minority Report for the Fish & Wildlife CAO section drew the following conclusions.

1. Public participation in the Planning Commission Process was suppressed.
2. The end result was a foregone conclusion.
3. No consideration was given to potential economic consequences of the FWHCAO draft.
4. The positions reflected in the Planning Commission draft are based on invalid analysis and legal conclusions.
5. The Planning Commission draft applies buffer restrictions in a manner inconsistent with and unsupported by the BAS that has been adopted for the CAO review.
6. The Planning Commission draft imposes restrictions on land use that are inconsistent with the GMA requirement to protect rural character.
7. The majority approach makes it impossible to monitor compliance with the no net loss criterion.
8. The majority approach improperly cuts corners just to get it done.

The report ends with the following statement:

The oft repeated shibboleth that "this will all have to be worked out in court" since "the county will be sued no matter what" is no reason for failing to conduct the difficult analysis required by the WAC and consistency with the GMA and the Comp Plan.

The Minority Report is just one more indication that the County isn't even trying to get it right anymore. The Council is just going through the motions to get the CAO passed, and they no longer give a damn.