Farce – /färs/  A theatrical piece in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character [or process].

I leave it to you to determine if “farce” is a fair characterization of what happened at Thursday night’s Water District Board meeting.

NOTE:   These posts have been criticized as being misrepresentative and divisive – even though all facts are sourced and all biases have been declared upfront.  Yes, I feel strongly about the Board’s continued lack of full transparency and their vilification and dismissal of the perspectives within this community that are different than theirs.  Some of that emotion does come through even though I try to be measured.

I believe that it is critically important to let the community know that as of last night even more doors are closed to their input about the Watershed. And I don’t want that message to be overshadowed by the strong emotions that I feel about what transpired at last night’s Board meeting and the obvious preparation leading up to it.  So, my intent here is to report the facts as dispassionately as possible so that they are clear and cannot be easily dismissed.

The below is not made up or fictionalized.  You can watch it unfold by sending an email to  philchickacutil@gmail.com and asking for the Zoom recording of the Oct 20 Board meeting.

Selection of the Forest Management Committee

Per the Board approved Management Plan, “a 3 person Forest Management Committee will have responsibility for working within an Operating Budget to determine an optimum approach for executing the budget (e.g., staff, consultant, vendors, partnerships) and working with staff / consultants / vendors / partners to execute the operating plan”.

1.   Nine people submitted applications for the Forest Management Committee

2.   At the Board meeting, there was no discussion about the extent to which each candidate did or did not meet the criteria for the Management Committee and there was virtually no debate about the “fit’ of any of the candidate, with the exception of:

• Concern was raised about a possible “perception of impropriety” by having the domestic partner of a current Board member selected by Board for the Management Committee.  The relevant Board member defended the selection as not being improper as they are not actually married and that “everyone that knows them knows that they are two separate people.”  That Board member did not recuse themself from the voting.

• A suggestion was made to expand the Management Committee to more than 3 people so that additional candidates who reflect alternative community perspectives can be included.  That suggestion was summarily dismissed with the rationale that the Board would have to change the size of the Committee since it was initially set to 3 people in the Board approved Management Plan.  No motion to change the size of the Management Committee was put forth by any Board member.

3.     Via a secret ballot process, the 3 people (1.c. above – Clark Binkley, Patricia Noonan, Michael Manzulli) who have been engaged with the Board throughout this Watershed project were selected to comprise the Management Committee.  None of the 6 people whose perspective were unknown or known to be different than the Board’s were selected.

Board Decisions re “Community Conversation” Requests

On September 10, the Board scheduled a Public Meeting – Community Conversation to better understand the alternative perspectives across the community.  Only 2 Board members participated.  The discussion focused around 4 topics/request.  At Thursday night’s Board meeting, the below decisions were made by the Board about those requests.

1.  Request:  Expand the Forest Advisory Committee to include at least one person representing the 100+ member Petition Group so that their alternative perspectives can be voiced and included.

Decision:  The Forest Advisory Committee will be disbanded in the Spring and as such there is no need to expand it now – even though it is the current work on public access that is of specific interest/concern to this segment of the community.   (Note the Chair of the Forest Advisory Committee was selected to be on the Forest Management Committee)

2.  Request:  Reactivate the disbanded Finance Committee and include 2 people representing the 100+ member Petition Group so that alternative perspectives can be voiced and included.

Decision:  The Finance Committee is not necessary since there will be a Forest Management Committee.  No one representing the Petition Group was selected for that Management Committee.

3.  Request:  Allow 2 persons representing the 100+ member Petition Group, with expertise relevant to the Board’s Agenda topic(s), to participate as non-voting members in interactive Board Discussion so that alternative perspectives can be voiced and included.

Decision:  Anyone can make comments during Board discussion

4.  Request:  Do not promote nor publicize public access or recreation in the Watershed until a final decision is made next Spring about relevant policies.

Decision:  Board will make “best effort” not to promote or publicize the Watershed.  With that said, the same Board member who claimed that “best effort” would be made not to promote the Watershed announced that the hired consultant from Sustainable Northwest is “very excited” about doing more tours.  Furthermore, the Board-approved public access/recreation process being led by the National Park Service is calling for outreach to interested stakeholder from Gearhart to Wheeler and other recreationalists.

Biased Commentary

Very Biased Commentary

As one person (other than me) said with who listened into the meeting – “They’ve taken the community out of community”. 

With all these doors closed, how does the community engage in any meaningful way?