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.

Countdown to CAOmageddon: Flaw #55 - Power and Control

What if the folks with the carefully cultivated image of eco-selflessness were actually the greediest, most power-hungry people in the room? Then you'd probably have an inkling about the workings of many environmental groups today. No matter how much "they" get, it's never enough. We saw a recent example of this with an email sent around by the Friends (see bottom of this post). They asked, "Shouldn't we protect 9% of our shorelines?"

The Friends know that 100% of our shorelines are proposed as critical under the draft CAOs. The Friends know that 20% to 25% of our shoreline parcels are already in either parks/public lands or in natural/conservancy designations. They're just hoping that you don't know it. 

I think our question back to the Friends should be, "Shouldn't the Friends have to tell the truth at least 9% of the time?"

But the Friends are just following in the tradition of many environmental organizations in Washington. Our neighbors in Skagit County have their hands full too. For a great summary of how the forces of eco-phony power and control are arrayed against average people, have a look at the video below.