When agendas differ, whose should prevail – the Board’s agenda for the community or the community’s agenda for the board ?
I would hope that the community’s agenda would become the Board’s, but that doesn’t seem to be the case with the Arch Cape Forest.
It’s one thing when the agenda only pertains to the operation of Water District plant and equipment. There is 100% alignment between community and Board – that agenda is supplying domestic drinking water.
It’s quite another thing when it comes to sudden, shared ownership of 1400+ acres of forest where values and money are at stake. There is no alignment! Over the past 6 weeks, the Board has ignored the community’s Petition for involvement, dismissed the community’s effort to survey members about Recreational Use, and published its own agenda for the Forest in the Astorian (click to see article).
“The project will turn the timberlands around the source of Arch Cape’s drinking water into a community forest. The water district, which oversees 295 water connections, plans to significantly scale back logging and provide recreational opportunities while protecting water and wildlife habitat.
The water district will begin developing a recreation and access plan for the forest beginning in May, a public process that will last several months. The district will work with the land conservancy, Lewis and Clark Timberlands and the National Park Service to complete the plan.
Just by the way it’s set up here and Highway 101 and the access points, this can’t be a Yellowstone National Park,” Chick said. “I don’t think anyone has any worries that anything like that is going to happen.”
The timing on this article is noteworthy. The article announcing the Board’s action to purchase was published in Friday’s paper. The Board’s vote was Thursday evening. Thus it seems likely that the interview/submission to the Astorian happened before the Board meeting and thus before the vote. (I have asked the journalist about the timing of the interview – was it before or after the vote – and no matter how many times I asked or how I danced with the question in different ways, she didn’t answer. But then again, I guess she did). Obviuously, the Board Chair and the District Manager have great crystal balls to know, in advance, the outcome of the Board’s vote. (I wonder if a fix was in!)
So, even before the Board voted to purchase the forest, the Board Chair and the District Manager announced to the Astorian their own plan for recreational use of our forest (no worries , the District Manager said it won’t be a Yellowstone), even though the Board has misrepresented their efforts to date, there is known opposition to the idea by at least a significant portion of the community and there is still question about the legality of the District running a recreational park. (see the conversation ‘Concerning Legal Grounds’)
The Forest initiative needs to get on a footing that reflects the community’s agenda, whatever that turns out to be, and not the agenda of a 5 member Board elected to run the District’s utility business.
The 11-person Ratepayer / Taxpayer Advisory Council, which has been formed in response to the community’s Petition, has outlined the following assumptions for guiding the Board and the community in arriving at single agenda and refining it over time.
1. The Board represents the interests of their constituency
The Board is elected by their constituency, in this case the ratepayers who are the owners of the forest and financially liable for it. Board direction and decisions will be representative of the values and interests of the majority of their constituency.
2. Ratepayers and taxpayers need to be informed and have a voice.
To capture the community’s informed perspective about forest issues such as Recreational Use; a) active communication is needed to awaken the community, b) transparent and comprehensive communication about alternatives and their implications is needed to inform the community, and a direct polling source, e.g. vote, survey, etc. is needed to hear the community’s voice.
3. Broad community involvement is better than narrow
For the Board to be most effective, the broader and more representative the community involvement – the better. Ideally, community members will provide time and expertise to assist the Board with community outreach and to help reflect this community’s perspective in the Board’s deliberation process. The more community members that are directly involved, the greater likelihood of community representation, the more extensive the knowledge base and the better as the work can be shared.
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 