[Previous entry: "EDITORIAL"] [Next entry: "Orcas Village Hearing Set For Friday"]

04/16/2008: "CC To MRC: Discontinue Any Effort on Aquatic Reserve"

(Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb and Mary Knackstedt address the Council)

What a strange meeting. In an unexpected move, the County Council voted on Tuesday (4-15-08) to kill any effort to place San Juan County into an Aquatic Reserve (SJAR.

On Tuesday a crowd had already started to form in front of the Council Chambers awaiting access to find out if they would be allowed to speak on the Reserve proposal, and if so, when?

The County Council agenda item always has a spot reserved at 10:00 a.m. for citizen access, which allows any citizen to give voice to any concern they may have. The Tuesday agenda stated the Council was to receive an update from the MRC (Marine Resources Committee) Coordinator Mary Knackstedt, on the Aquatic Reserve, at 11:10 a.m., but said nothing about allowing citizen comment.

A large number of citizens showed up to comment at 10:00 o’clock on the Reserve proposal, but Rosenfeld informed them they would not be allowed to speak on an agenda item, but should time allow, he would allow comment during the 11:10 report from Knackstedt, even though it had not been advertised that public comment would be allowed. That was the first strange thing, since the Council rules do not restrict free speech on any subject during Citizen Access time. Something to do with the US Constitution.


.
(continued from front page)
With the Rosenfeld ruling, a couple people left the room The Council then started on the work of the day, which was to move through the agenda items; but then In an unexpected move, Rosenfeld decided if there was a gap in between agenda items, to start to allow public comment. Those who had left the room had no idea this was going on, and were surprised to learn they had missed out in hearing, and giving, testimony at that time.

Scott Webster led off the formal comments, and suggested that since DNR had paid to have the SJAR (San Juan Aquatic Reserve) Proposal written, that an equal amount of money be requested from DNR (Department of Natural Resources) to produce a report by those who were opposed to the SJAR.

Gordy Peterson said what the MRC says, and what they do, “are often at odds;” and gave the example of the MRC telling the Council “they were writing a letter of interest to the DNR (to become a SJAR), and it turns out that what they did was try to assert control as a lead agency to negotiate a 90 year deal with the Department of Natural Resources.”

Rock Sorenson stated “we have not been invited into the debate that has taken place behind closed doors,” and expressed his concern that “there are individuals on the MRC that have clear special interests.. some are paid as lobbyists for special interests."

Bill Wright complained that “I did not realize there was going to be a public meeting."

Lee Brooks submitted a written response to those who were opposed to the SJAR.

When the actual SJAR agenda item came up, the next surprise was Knackstedt announcing she would only be available to answer questions, and introduced the MRC Chair, Kit Rawson, who apologized profusely to the Council about how the MRC had mishandled the SJAR process, and said that “we know how to conduct an inclusive community discussion, but we didn’t do it, we haven’t done that yet here.”

Rawson admitted they had “been aware of many of the concerns recently raised since last summer, but we haven’t yet addressed them”. This led to the next surprise, when he turned over the mike to Jim Slocomb to formally make the presentation to the Council.

Mr. Slocomb has many talents, but diplomacy is not what he is know for. Slocomb submitted, and read an eight bulleted Statement to the Council that started off with “Welcome to the most completely misunderstood process in my memory,” and ended with “We still think this is a good idea, but we must have the public's backing on a proposal such as this. And we will not get it if we look like we're running out way ahead of them”.

He only broke stride once, when after reading that “DNR currently exercises their authority/responsibility unilaterally without any county input;” and then looked up at the Council and said “You guys really don’t really get to say very much about it.”

When Slocomb completed his presentation, Councilman Rich Peterson told Slocomb that the Council had received public input prior to his presentation, and the public is not confused, “they are really, really clear on how they feel about the Aquatic Preserve process”.

Peterson noted that the SJAR would reverse the normal priority rating that DNR uses in management when it comes to the Reserve, making the environment “far more important than human activities”.

This was later spelled out in greater detail when a Nature Conservancy speaker said the DNR ranking of importance in management of public land is 1. Marine transportation; 2, Aquatic Food production; 3. Public access, and 4. Environmental stewardship. He said the SJAR would make the last one the first priority.

Councilman Gene Knapp asked Slocomb if he had written the “eight bullets” he had just presented to the Council. He then highlighted the eight points Slocomb presented to the Council, and said they leave us “with no options but to drop this” proposal to the DNR.”

Councilman Alan Lichter said he had concerns that “there are already so many organizations already functioning in this area -doing marine research, doing protective work, doing environmental work- why do we want to add another layer?”

Councilman Bob Myhr also had concerns about the current proposal, but after Councilman Peterson makd a motion to “direct the MRC to discontinue any effort to place San Juan County into an Aquatic Reserve,” and Councilman Alan Lichter gave a second, Myhr asked “does that mean ‘forever’”?

Peterson responded that “Well no, I was prepared to put in 'for ninety years' there, but..” and the end of the sentence was drowned out when the public burst out in a combination of laugher and applause.

Myhr asked “would you be willing to temper it slightly.” Peterson said they cannot restrict what future councils can or cannot do, and indicated he had made his motion. Myhr persisted in questioning the Peterson motion, and Peterson asked “Do you want me to read it again”, which he then did, and Myhr said “I cannot support the motion.”

Rosenfeld noted it had been moved and seconded, and called for the vote.

Councilman Lichter, Knapp and Rosenfeld joined Peterson and voted for the motion. Councilman Bob Myhr voted against the motion, saying he would like to know more about the “pros and cons” of it. Councilman Kevin Ranker was not at the meeting.