The water district board meeting is scheduled for this Thursday night AFTER the Sanitary District Meeting. It will probably start around 6:25-6:30.
The zoom link is
On this past Sunday, a hunter’s camp started a fire in our Watershed. Fire Rescue vehicles did not have access through the Water District’s Gate at the Hug Point road. Rescue vehicles had to waste times getting to the fire via the Tolovana Mainline and a sledge hammer had to be used to break the locks. This is a wake up call!!! (Much gratitude to David Dougherty – Arch Cape Resident and a Lewis & Clark Timberlands employee – who raised the alarm, found the alternative pathway to the fire and directed the Fire Rescue to it!)
And none of this is on the Board Meeting Agenda which was posted 2 days after the fire.
This fire raises serious operational issues that the District must address, i.e., ease of access by rescue vehicles, timely notification of appropriate authorities, patrolling to prevent camping/fires and resources to clean up debris, among others. Obviously, these operational plans do not exist and need to be developed. Yet, at least two of the candidates selected by the Board for the Management Committee have no professional qualifications for developing operations plans or for working with staff and vendors to implement them, as specified as responsibilities of the Management Committee in the Multi-Resource Plan.
Who should develop those essential operating plans (along with financial plans, budgets. etc. for Watershed operations) and make sure these plans are carried out —- people with relevant experience OR people without such experience but who are friends and family of the Board and support how the Board continues to do things?
We are hoping that the Board will redo the secret ballot process that they used last month to select the Forest Management committee. At that meeting, the Board either misunderstood or misrepresented the responsibilities of the committee and rather than selecting the most qualified candidates, the Board selected two “friends and family” candidates, one of whom is the domestic partner of a board member who cast ballots in the process (see specifics below).
The $60 Million Question: Will the Board redo the selection process for the Forest Management Committee, even though they are not legally required to do so?
We have spoken with Oregon Ethics Commission and a private law firm. It appears that the Nepotism that happened in last month’s process is legal since the positions on the Forest Management Committee are unpaid. It also appears that the Board’s appointments are legal because even though in the middle of the meeting they used secret balloting to select their candidates, they later (at the very end of the meeting) made a motion to appoint those candidates to the Committee and voted on it – which passed with no discussion 4-1.
So even though the intent of the statutes was disregarded, the letter of the law was met.
For the purpose of full transparency, to mitigate risk to our Watershed and to ensure that the members of the Forest Management Committee are qualified to fulfill the responsibilities that are listed on page 16 of the Board approved Multi-Resource Management Plan …
Here is our ask of the Board:
1. Redo the secret ballot process: Click here for the zoom recording. From the 39:30 time mark to the 1:02:50 time mark, you can watch the selection process which includes the “perception of impropriety” discussion (which was explained away) and two rounds of secret balloting. The Board goes onto other business. You can then watch at the end of the meeting, from 1:24:04 time mark to the 1:27:02 time mark, when a motion was made to accept the results of the secret balloting and appoint those candidates to the Management Committee. It passed 4-1.
Of Important Relevance: From time marks 42:00 min – 43:18, a Board Member and the District Manager misrepresent the responsibilities of the Committee, ending with “this committee will not be tasked with creating these [Operating] Plans.” This is a direct contradiction of what is stated and underlined in the 2nd paragraph on page 16 of the Plan approved by the Board on November 18, 2021 and posted on the web site. Also, as you will note, there is absolutely no discussion of the qualifications of the 9 candidates to satisfy those responsibilities.
2. Match candidates to Committee responsibilities: Click here for a Side-by-side comparison of candidate qualifications. This table starts with the responsibilities of the management committee (as defined by the Board on page 16 of the Governance Section of the Multi-Resource Management Plan). It then presents the qualifications of the 9 candidates to meet the Committee’s responsibilities. This information was not included in last months Board’s process. The 3 candidates selected by the Board are highlighted in yellow. (Note the business qualification of 2 of them)
Click here for the 9 applications that were submitted to the Board. The above comparison table was drawn from these applications.
3. Use a merit-based selection process. Click here for an Industry-standard selection process that is optimized to select by merit rather than favoritism or nepotism.
In the interest of transparency, minimizing risk to the Watershed and appointing qualified candidates that have no conflicts of interest, why not redo the process in the above manner? If the Board comes out with the same result – so be it!
Please tune in on Thursday eve.
Thanks
Arch Cape Community Interest Group
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 
3 responses to “#16Y: Will Sunday’s Fire in the Watershed be sufficient warning for the Board to redo their Committee selection at Thursday’s Board Meeting”
From Mike Ardington (via email)
Just a comment or two from an old Fire Management Officer on the Washington coast:
First, let’s not indulge in too much hyperbole here, even though this event HAS definitely pointed out a hole in the local wild lands fire response system.
This fire could not have been very serious in terms of resource damage because, even with the relatively dry November we are having, the 100 hour fuel moisture (basically dead wood 1-3″ in diameter) could not have been dry enough in the 2″ & up size particularly, to allow for a broadcasting fire.
Elk hunters are accustomed to relaxed behavior regarding camp fires simply because during a normal elk season there is virtually no wildfire danger. In fact, this is the time of year that timberland owners burn slash piles because it is almost always safe to do so.
In WA State, and I assume Oregon, summer fire crews have been dispersed back to college, etc., and patrolling fire trucks (200-600 gallon capacity) are for the most part winterized…. and, it was Sunday, outside of normal fire season.
However, the lack of access for emergency agencies and their vehicles IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE. In most Counties of western Washington, Fish and Wildlife and Sheriff’s Departments have gate keys to all relevant timberland gates. Many local fire departments also have these. This particular fire was on a Sunday, in November. This is sort of a perfect storm for an ineffective response…. and , perhaps, a serendipitous perfect storm since it points to a hole in the fire response fabric.
While rare, November fires on the west side of the Cascades do occur… in the mid-1980’s we responded to a fire on Weyerhauser lands that was at about 2,000 feet elevation in a large harvest unit. I cannot recall how it started, either hunter camp or pile burning most likely. We were on that fire for several days and there WAS resource damage. Weird fighting fire while there’s frost and ice on the ground in the morning!!
Thanks to all involved in the response to this situation and to Bill Campbell for continuing to be an advocate for transparency regarding this lands management issue.
LikeLike
Tevis Dooley
Ditto to all of what Mike laid out above.
I’m having trouble connecting the issues about the voting process for the Management Committee with the fire event. If different members of the community had been chosen for the Committee, presumably more qualified, would they have all the planning in place at this time?
With all due respect to Bill Campbell, who plays a vital role in our community as a very thorough watchdog, I will play the devils advocate regarding the chart for qualifications and suggest that there could be a few more Xs in the columns of those two individuals who were chosen with concerns. I have known one for forty years and the other for ten and neither are without skills, experiences and commitment.
I think the real concern behind this vote and other actions from day one is whether there is a predetermined, overall plan that is being followed regardless of community input that will leave us all very unsatisfied on the whole. Probably at the top of that list is whether or not poor planning will ruin the district financially because the plants are neglected or management requirements outstrip the forests ability to meet them. Right next to that is human use of the forest beyond what the majority of the community wants because there are buried clauses in loan agreements we are bound by. This is why we are asking our representatives to be responsive. Kudos again to bill and all the others who work on this. I just want to keep issues and definitions clear.
Thank you
LikeLike
Hey Tevis – you raise some good questions – allowing for an opportunity for clarity.
1) There is absolutely no intent to, in any way, hold the recently selected Forest Management Committee accountable for what happened on Sunday. The intent IS to say that Sunday’s fire situation demonstrates there is critical work to done and relevant expertise will be key. The intent IS also to say that the selection process that was used by the Board was seriously flawed. The Board read off the wrong responsibilities of the Committee, had no discussion about each candidates qualifications, and did not in any way quantify each candidate’s qualifications towards those responsibilities in any cohesive, transparent manner. (Strong words I know, but it appears to be what the Zoom recording shows. Everyone is encouraged to review and make their own judgement)
2) The grid in no way reflects the sum total of a person or a person’s qualifications. I’m sure additional Xs can be filled in for all candidates. The grid reflects what is on the applications that were submitted by 9 candidates and are posted on the District’s web site. The applications and the grid are both available on the blog and everyone can make their own assessment about how well the grid matches the applications. Of importance here is that the applications submitted by the candidates and grid reflect the candidates own assessment of their qualification for Committee’s responsibilities as defined in the Multi-Resource Management Plan approved by the Board. (they filled out and submitted the applications.) I would hope that each candidate took the effort to put their best foot forward knowing that they would be evaluated critically, i.e. not have an inside track because of their friendships or other relationships with Board members.
Most importantly – your real concern is well said and I support it 100%.
LikeLike