Reconveyance Decision Upcoming

Bob Simmons has posted another piece on Crosscut about an impending decision by the Whatcom County Council regarding whether over 8000 acres of steep DNR-managed timberlands upslope of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir will become designated County parklands that severely restrict future clear-cutting and its associated service-road building.

Here is the comment I posted:

This is a good idea and affordable. To mimic nature is always easier when nature is left to do the job it does. There will always be pro & con arguments, but preserving these steep slopes from clear-cutting has to be a no-brainer! Bellingham & Whatcom County are very fortunate to have such a large and pure reservoir for a drinking water supply, but until relatively recently, understanding what it takes to preserve it has been slow in coming. 1992 was the year that a joint Resolution was signed that identified known problems that need to be faced, with careful thought coupled with effective action, not just talk. Other major cities, like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Portland, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC, etc had long ago taken steps to ensure the safety of their water supplies, but not Bellingham -which had and has some serious catching up to do! 

The Whatcom County government has been very slow in coming to terms with its water policy, and not just concerning the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. It still lacks any meaningful storm water program that has both long term goals and funding. So, this reconveyance can represent a good start, and one that is affordable and effective in mimicking nature on the very steep slopes that need to be kept stable and green, whether one calls it a park or watershed buffer; trees and native plants do the work necessary to hold unstable soil in place. And, since soil is the major source of phosphorus, keeping it out of Lake Whatcom is important if the growing problem of algae blooms is to be curtailed. 

Bellingham, by contrast, has focused is watershed preservation efforts on acquiring land more suitable for development, using funds from surcharges on it's water sales as purveyor. Of course, this land is more expensive; it is not often just given away! The point is, that whatever watershed land is preserved -by whatever method- it all contributes to stopping inappropriate development in this stressed and sensitive watershed. Make no mistake about the fact that development -whether housing, clear-cut logging, roads, etc- is the main culprit in degrading this wonderful water supply source! To the extent the DNR reconveyance helps, its good. 

It's now time for this decision to be favorably made, since the issue has been thoroughly debated for several years, during which almost $400,000 has been already spent by the County to survey and consolidate parcels into the configuration upon which the decision now rests.

Practically every objection raised has now been addressed and reasonably satisfied, except of course for those permanently mired in selfish interest or extreme ideological thinking.
The recent $500,000 contribution through the Whatcom Land Trust to the Mount Baker School District certainly keeps that jurisdiction whole from future timber harvest revenue loss.
Also, scaling back expensive early plans for extensive park development results in far less new revenue demand from the County, which helps both fiscally and in terms of avoiding adverse watershed impacts.

When this DNR reconveyance proposal first publicly surfaced in the fall of 2007, I also raised several concerns, all of which have now been satisfactorily addressed. I hope the County Council -and the new Executive- will allow this idea to go forward and become the reality most residents want and have come to expect.
It will be good for the County, good for Lake Whatcom Reservoir, and it will respect all the hard work, effort and expense it has required to proceed thus far in good faith. All that is left to do is the final approval, which only the Council can decide.

Port: The Morning After

Bummer!

I have the feeling of a bad hangover but no recollection of having anything approaching a good time.

The spectacle of two bozos pretending to be Port Commissioners trying again to spin a mess of their own making into someone else's fault -in this case, their victim's- will likely remain with me indefinitely.

These guys need to be decommissioned!

If they had any gumption they would take that action themselves.

Dereliction of duty isn't just a matter to prove, it's a readily observable phenomenon, which the case of the Port has unfolded unmistakably over the last several years; at least from my frame of reference.

That dates back to the time the Port seemed willing to undertake a project of major importance to this entire community that had the backing and enthusiasm such ventures always seem to require, but often lack.

That priceless backing and enthusiasm has now been largely wasted -literally pissed away- by the Port's ruling junta. Mark my words, our community will suffer for it!

I can't remember a time when folks we elected to office have been so publicly disingenuous.

They sat in front of an entire room of people and made the same self-serving sounds that we've heard before, in defense of an action that is indefensible!

It's difficult to know where to begin to unravel the circular arguments and convoluted reasoning that issued from the lips of Commissars Walker and Jorgenson, except to say palpable untruths were unquestionably interwoven.

Perhaps, the most audacious statement was that Port Director Charlie Sheldon was 'terminated' because of 'dissension in the ranks'.

Unstated, was the fact that this 'dissension' was created by Commissar Walker himself, who not only sowed those seeds, but watered them, enlisted other gardeners, and then harvested their bitter fruits to poison someone he considered a potential nemesis to his reign as Chief Commissar.

Give me a break!

No one is stupid enough to believe that crap, except for the two misguided traitors of the public trust who sat there and exercised their already advanced ability to CYA.

Now, I am under no illusions that this latest amateurish jibe by the Port will just correct itself with no one else being hit in the head or swept over the side. But, it will change, because it must! And I, for one, will definitely work to make that happen; the sooner the better.

Today's Gristle again zeroed in on this subject and fired more direct hits at this already sinking derelict. Will it go down by the bow or stern? Or roll over?

More likely, just slowly take on water and disappear - except for the nice little fru-fru pennants on the top mast, that always seem to be flapping in a breeze - also of the Port's own making.

Eventually, when the pennants fray to threads, seagulls will find new perches, and join the barnacles to memorialize the wreck -to become known as Walker's Folly.

Phew-ip, phew-weee; now hear this; all voting citizens, lay down to the polls and elect a new Captain!

The Port's Reality Distortion Field

------------------------------

What's the difference between the Port of Bellingham and the Boy Scouts?

Answer: The Boy Scouts have adult supervision.

------------------------------

All the brightwork polish in the world won't put a shine on our Port's activities these days, until the current corrosive scheming and salty talk is harnessed to a more positive effect.

What could restore some Port lustre is the simple return to basics, like teamwork, self-discipline and a renewed focus on the goals that count to this community; think waterfront redevelopment and the prudent generation of jobs and commerce that belong on or near the waters of Bellingham's rusty front door.

Since the Port's appalling Commissioner's meeting two weeks ago, I've given some thought to what happened - as was observed by about 100 concerned citizens. It wasn't pretty or necessary, but instead, silly and counterproductive

The questions remain; why did it happen and what can be done about it now?

Several written accounts have been published since the talk of summarily dismissing the Port's Director surfaced, all of them faithful to accurate reporting of what was seen and heard.

John Stark's Herald reports are referenced here.

Tim Johnson's Cascadia Weekly articles are here, and here.

John Servais' blogs on Northwest Citizen start here.

An online petition in support of Charlie Sheldon is here. [I've signed it]

But, explaining why this unusual dustup happened should be the real story, particularly if similar missteps are to be avoided in the future.

My assessment of the Port of Bellingham is that it has an excellent 90-person staff, of which about 10% are considered 'senior'. A little top-heavy, but with the range of operations involved likely appropriate.

Since at least the mid-nineties, the Port has seemed to function pretty well, with a possible exception or two better known by closer observers.

So, with these points in mind, what has changed that might account for this recent kerfluffle?

Three things mainly come to mind:

• The Port's 2004 commitment to waterfront cleanup & redevelopment, in partnership with the City of Bellingham

• The resignation of former Executive Director, Jim Darling in 2009 and subsequent hiring of Charlie Shelton 19 months ago

• The recent election of Commissioner Mike McAuley to replace former long term Commissioner Doug Smith

Now, my point: the only 'reason' given for the quick, forced termination of current Executive Director Sheldon was the excessively vague rationale of 'the Port wanting to go in another direction'. Not a new direction necessarily,mind you, just another one.

Now, what in hell does that mean?

Was there a real 'cause' for this sacking, other than the two older Commissioner's wishes?

What was the great hurry?

Why was Sheldon hired in the first place?

More importantly, how is this situation going to be resolved?

Here's my attempt to answer these questions:

'Another' direction really seems to mean the old direction, most familiar and comfortable to most of the current Port players who were used to dealing with one another predictably and not wading into waters more than ankle deep. That has now changed and some of the older players don't like it. Each of the three changes listed above likely plays a key part in the current situation.

First, undertaking the ambitious waterfront redevelopment envisaged took the Port into much deeper waters than it was accustomed to or equipped for. That has been evident since 2004, when the partnership agreement with the City was first formalized, with difficulty. At the time, there were many details yet to be investigated for which information was needed, and even more importantly - jointly developed in full collaboration with the City.

That collaboration has not been easy, and still seems to lack the mutual trust & respect necessary to bring this admittedly audacious project into accepted reality. Instead, it has repeatedly lapsed into bouts of bickering that do not engender public confidence in the Port's ability -or willingness- to work with the City in a true, bilateral sense of cooperation.

I am not pointing fingers here, just pointing out what has been a very public display of disagreement in matters important, even essential, to eventual success.

During the time in which the Port decided to undertake this very ambitious project, it had the benefit of fairly stable and predictable leadership. Former Port Director Darling was an experienced and competent leader, always supported by at least two, and often all three Commissioners who supported him strongly and were satisfied with things the way they were.

That comfort zone began to change in earnest during 2003/4, when the G-P property was acquired and the Waterfront Redevelopment effort begun, with the Port's main interest being the alchemy of turning the former G-P waste treatment pond [ASB] into a world class marina -perhaps the last one likely to be permitted anywhere along the West Coast. That was the first attraction and hoped-for cash cow for supporting whatever else came to fruition.

Also, about that time, Commissioner Jorgenson was first elected and welcomed by Commissioners Walker and Smith, the two old sea dogs who had been in place for years, and along with Director Darling, mainly controlled Port activities and its culture.

I know first-hand that Jorgenson's comfort level was severely challenged when he was faced with agreeing to taking on the huge Redevelopment effort that the two senior Commissioners and Director favored, but he did accept their assurances and agree himself as well.

So, there should be no doubt that this Marina dream was the carrot that enticed the Port into its current briar patch. Carrying semi-apt analogies just a bit further, the moment the Port agreed to partner with the City on the much larger project, was also the time it touched the tar baby of real public process, something it had only dabbled its toes in before.

Predictably, the Port's difficulties in dealing with both the City and concerned citizens led to agitation to begin changing the Port toward -shall we say- a more customer friendly culture. Unused to heated public political challenges, the Commissioners struggled to maintain control while the essential partnership with the City also struggled in fits and starts, due largely to a clash of cultures and emerging fiscal realities. Such things are never easy, and the cumulative mutual bruising began to erode the positive momentum initially generated. As time passed, none of this spectacle was helping the project go forward, especially with the enthusiasm of shared public visions.

In late 2006, Mayor Mark Asmundson - a dynamic advocate for the Port partnership - resigned and was replaced by former Mayor Tim Douglas, who served admirably until 2008, when Dan Pike was elected Mayor with ideas of his own. More turbulence ensued as Pike tried unsuccessfully to get things back on the track originally intended - albeit with some different tweaks that lacked traction.

Then, in mid 2009, Jim Darling - after NOAA's decision to relocate its facilities to Oregon instead of Bellingham - resigned as Executive Director, leaving something of a leadership vacuum at the Port. In the interim, while a 17-month search for a new Director was being conducted, slow progress continued, limited both by ongoing disagreements between Port & City, plus the new priorities of an unhealthy economy.

In late 2010, two significant changes occurred; Charlie Sheldon was named new Port Director by unanimous consent of all three current Commissioners, Walker, McAuley and Jorgenson. [Mike McAuley was elected Commissioner to replace Smith, beginning in 2010]

Over the next 18 months, those changes would come to be perceived as disruptions to the usual scheme of things at the Port, particularly the burden of dealing with the Redevelopment effort.

Charlie Shelton, despite his excellent credentials in Seattle, wasn't from around here and unsurprisingly had a somewhat different perspective and operating style than prior Directors. Perhaps, he simply didn't replace his rubber boots with the rubber stamps that the Commissioners preferred? I don't know. But, I also don't know what job description he was given or what rules he was supposed to follow. Those things do seem a bit unspoken -and maybe even uncharted- to me regarding the Port.

Good ol' boys do seem to expect newcomers to just intuit how things are done, sometimes without much explanation. Had you noticed? Maybe Charlie's instincts weren't up to this task, whether a reasonable expectation or not. More important, any Director worth his salt wouldn't likely agree to simply become an obedient yes-man, to part-time politicos, would they?

Anyway, the introduction of a new Commissioner about the time a new Port Director was hired might have triggered a barely perceptible tipping of balance in the Port Commission's unseen mechanisms.

Faced with not only a new Director - chosen unanimously by the Commission- and a new, independent minded Commissioner, elected to bring more public accountability to it, apparently grew into displeasure for at least one of the old Commissioners [Walker], who much preferred his former tacit understandings with familiar colleagues. Remember, Walker has been there since 1991 -even before Jim Darling had been hired- so not only was he used to getting his way, but he was invested in certain prized outcomes, such as the conversion of the ASB into a Marina.

By contrast, Jorgenson is a relative newcomer [only 9 years as Commissioner] who got used to going along and getting along with his two senior Commissioners, as well as former Director Darling, whose stamp was on nearly every Port activity. Also, longer term observers will remember the complaint by Jorgenson's predecessor, Ginny Benton, that she resented Port 'decisions being made in the men's room'. What does that tell you? Think Jorgenson was treated any differently?

I really like Jim Jorgenson, and have respected him since he became a Port Commissioner 9 years ago - right in the midst of the decision to take on the G-P and Waterfront Redevelopment with the City as partner. Jim is a reasonable person with the overall welfare of the community at heart, so I don't view him as a schemer, intent on getting his way on things; no, he's much more of a peacemaker, as even his colleagues see him. But Jim has his comfort zone, too. He's known Walker as a colleague over nine years now, while McAuley remains mainly a newcomer with an independent streak. Could that be a key in understanding Walker's success in convincing Jorgenson to support a quick jettisoning of Sheldon? That is very possible, especially when coupled with a few expressions of discontent from 'senior' staff members, with the apparent complicity of the Port's hired legal counsel.

But, Jorgenson takes his job seriously and I know he has been impressed by the unusual outpouring of public support for Sheldon, so maybe, just maybe, he'll change his mind. I would be surprised if he decided to compound the problem by again ratifying it, but that's his call. I do think Jim recognizes the Port's public reputation is now on the line, and this in turn might also impact the Port's ability to recruit other quality candidates for the Director position. Who would seriously entertain the idea of working here amid such arbitrary and fractious intrigues?

I hope Charlie Sheldon will agree to return as Director, providing a contract offer with assurance of continued support is offered. I have it on pretty good authority that Sheldon would favorably consider returning to the job for which he was hired, if good faith is demonstrated by at least a majority of the Port Commission. That's two Commissioners, folks.

Let's hope that happens.

--------------

So, back to the questions asked above;

Not a new direction necessarily, just another one. Now, what in hell does that mean?

My view is as described above; the dynamics of Port leadership changed and some folks didn't like that their influence was diminished. Couple that with a new Director eager to learn about other opportunities, options and opinions and understand how this might appear as a threat to the status quo.

Was there a real 'cause' for this sacking, other than the two older Commissioner's wishes?

Probably not. That's why all the stammering, embarrassment, hearsay and hiding behind assumed executive session privileges. Because the Port Director is hired by and reports to the Commission, he is likely considered an at-will employee, meaning he serves at their pleasure and can be fired without cause. In that vein, any discussion of the ASB being used for any purpose other a Marina could have contributed to the dissatisfaction by a Commissioner; because the ASB was seen as an absolute sacred cow, despite any inconvenient facts relating to its ultimate viability! Any dissatisfied Commissioner only needs to persuade one other Commissioner to take the action of firing its subordinate, without needing what most of us outsiders might agree represents a just cause. They could do it, so they did.

What was the great hurry?

It was largely manufactured as a fait accompli, closely following the tragic and fatal fire at the Port's boathouse facility, and during the time several senior staff were away. Was this a railroad job designed to satisfy Commissioner Walker and his recruited accomplice[s]? It sure looks like it to me.

Why was Sheldon hired in the first place?

Simply because he had the qualifications, made himself available, responded to Port recruiting efforts, and filled the Port's needs for an experienced Director better than the other candidates. It is ironic that two of the three Commissioners which voted to hired him are now the ones willing to fire him without any clear reason other than they wanted to go in another direction! You've got to be kidding! What were they thinking then? Now what are they likely to do?

More importantly, how is this situation going to be resolved?

That is the critical question that may be determined at tomorrow's Port meeting.

I hope Charlie Sheldon will agree to return to duty, but the hasty action already taken and the adverse publicity from it may mitigate against such a decision.

If Sheldon doesn't return, the Port will likely need yet another interim Director, before going to the expense of another costly recruiting exercise. Then what? Another repeated fiasco?

Long term, the solution belongs to us voters. Be careful who you elect!

Scott Walker ought to be encouraged to resign, but that might be a more difficult course to steer, since he's already been around over 20 years.

Rob Fix, the CFO and possible new interim Port Director, has been around only three years and seems to lack essential qualifications for this office.

I hope citizens will again show up at the Port Commission meeting tomorrow at 3 PM to again show tangible support for retaining Charlie Sheldon as the Port's Executive Director.

This Commission desperately needs unmistakable public encouragement to get its affairs in order.

Let's give them that encouragement, especially Commissioner Jorgenson, who is usually, a very reasonable man who really cares about our community and the important role the Port of Bellingham plays in it.

Coal: Updating Public Concerns

[NOTE: A correction has been made, as shown in bold below]

Unfortunately, this GPT proposal is a subject that won't go away despite widespread community concern and wishful thinking on the part of many who were drawn to our area because of its outstanding natural beauty, abundant clean air and water and relative peacefulness.

The prospect of our scenic shoreline being used to haul, handle and ship coal to China in huge quantities without our acceptance of the idea is as disturbing as it is potentially disruptive of many of the things we hold dear. Yet, we seem powerless to have our voices heard in the bureaucratic process through which the idea will be considered, conditioned and decided upon. That is very frustrating, even infuriating to many, including me.

Last week, a public meeting was held to explain the process and projected timeline for the so-called Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] to be completed, once a qualified consultant has been named; which is also when the official clock is started for public comment.

That means all of the concerns that have been registered to date must be resubmitted after the date the official clock -stopwatch- gets started; and it makes no difference whether these concerns were registered verbally or in writing, on paper or in electronic format.

Now, all this stuff must be submitted again via e-mail, to make it easier for the bureaucrats to record, review and evaluate it within the time frame they will allocate. Because, I have already written down most of my comments, it won't take much more effort for me to resubmit it -which I do plan to do. Hopefully, just submitting URLs to several blogs will be sufficient, but who knows? If the bureaucrats require only text, then I'll have a bit more work to do and they will need to provide a few more megabytes of electronic storage.

Since the overall time frame is generally estimated to be about two years before decisions can be made, all this public input must probably be made in 60 days from the time to be announced about the next 12 to 18 months; after that, its too late to be heard - whether that means by real human beings or digital archives.

Fortunately - or unfortunately, we are told that all this electronic input will be made available for our own public scrutiny on official websites; essentially our own electronic media being regurgitated back at us is apparently all we can expect while the contracted work of evaluating, weighting and forcing the comments into predetermined formats is being done by professionals, in whom the power to decide what project gets built will be invested.

I wish I had more faith in this process than I do! But, you see this game is already rigged; the 'process' is actually a fancy, detailed checklist designed to eventually justify an approval of some sort, based upon whatever is accepted as its 'scope'.

That 'scoping' is the real game; limiting the scope very narrowly protects the would-be investors' investment, conveniently externalizing those things excluded to 'others' - meaning us, already cash-strapped local governments, our cash-short State government and our hopelessly inept and unresponsive Federal government.

To the extent the 'investors' can escape being held accountable for things like providing safe railroad crossings, protecting our clean air & water, limiting noise and nuisances, preserving our shoreline flora & fauna, eliminating potential spillage and harm from gigantic ships using our restricted scenic waters, reducing property values, depleting our national resources, aiding & abetting the economy of our chief competitor for manufacturing products and supplying jobs, while continuing to collect subsidies and profits from avoiding responsibility, they most certainly will!

In short, these 'investors' will seek to profit at the expense of the public. Count on it!

There have been a few more articles posted during the last several days that relate to this coal terminal proposal that shed light on new perspectives:

This month's Whatcom Watch carries this update from Preston Schiller:

A KCTS article states increased coal train traffic could mean bad news. Ya think?

This one, from the Billings, MT Outpost asks Who pays cost of coal trains?

Enjoy these reads, then form your own opinion, making sure you write it down so it can be submitted via e-mail when the bureaucrats tell you it's time.

Coal: History Has A Way Of Repeating Itself.

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent reports of the public meeting at Bellingham High School held on Tuesday, March 20 were published in the Herald [John Stark] and Crosscut [Floyd Mackay]. Also, a Snohomish County blog has picked up coverage. Together, these summarize the status of the project as viewed by officialdom; which means everything written or spoken before this moment in time must be repeated again -in writing- to become part of the official record.

Imagine that! All that has gone before merely prepares for what must come next. If that sounds a little redundant or convoluted, it may be, but the rules applies anyway if public input is to be considered. So be it.

Since I've already written down most of my remarks and references made to date, I might be almost abreast of this game, providing the designated officialdom accepts my e-mailed list of URLs. And, if they don't, there will need to be many e-mails with miles of text to send into the yawning maw of bureaucracy. You know I WILL do it, don't you? So, that history will repeat itself, too. I will print a list at the bottom for my own public record.

----------------------

Does anyone really believe the proposed GPT project ought to be simple to decide upon?

Should it be of such limited scope that it confines itself to the 250 acres of property and the proposed wharf site? Shouldn't all the roads, towns, people and nature along the long railroad rights-of-way and shipping lanes be considered?

And, is this 'debate' really about jobs? Which jobs? Those in China?

Or, is it mostly about the shortsighted greed of a few FATCATS?

And, what about the costs that get excluded from the so-called EIS, like serious mitigation for the created safety, health, nuisance and property value problems GPT would cause? Would these be externalized for assignment to 'others' - meaning taxpayers, property owners and financially strapped local governments?

I'm afraid these words uttered in 1932 by FDR at the Commonwealth Club are what the proponents want:

"The profits go to companies, and the debt goes to the people"

---------------------

Here's my list of blogs on this subject:

Coal: HamsterTalk Blogs from March 27 thru March 23, 2012

Here are 27 previous Blogs with a 'Coal' label written from March 27, 2011 through December 30, 2011 on HamsterTalk

1. Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear... Sunday, March 27, 2011

2. Coal Terminal: Mayor's Listening Session Wednesday, June 1, 2011

3. Good Mornin' America, How Are Ya? Wednesday, June 8, 2011

4. Climatology: Natural Science or Political Science? Saturday, July 9, 2011

5. Making Tracks To Where? Friday, July 15, 2011

6. Coal Terminal: A Pit & Pendulum Exercise? Thursday, July 21, 2011

7. Coal Terminal: Trains & Infrastructure Saturday, July 30, 2011

8. Coal Terminal: Bulk Carriers & Kayaks Sunday, July 31, 2011

9. Coal Terminal: Update on Developments Monday, August 1, 2011

10. Coal Terminal: Another Update Tuesday, August 2, 2011

11. Coal Terminal: Playing Defense Wednesday, August 3, 2011

12. Coal Terminal:Whatcom Watch Remembers Cherry Point Agreement Thursday, August 4, 2011

13. Coal: A Global Perspective Thursday, September 1, 2011

14. Coal: Floyd McKay's Latest Crosscut Article Wednesday, September 28, 2011

15. Coal: Green versus Gold? Wednesday, October 19, 2011

16. Coal: The Role of Politics Wednesday, October 19, 2011

17. Coal: National Geographic Article Friday, October 21, 2011

18. Coal: NPR Weighs In With Two Articles Thursday, October 27, 2011

19. Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring Friday, October 28, 2011

20. Coal: Where Does Bellingham Really Stand? Sunday, October 30, 2011

21. Coal: Location, Location, Location - For Whom? Monday, October 31, 2011

22. Coal: What Does Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopement & The Olympic Pipe Line Have to Do With It? Thursday, November 3, 2011

23. Coal: Possible Good News? Thursday, November 10, 2011

24. Energy: Update On Coal, Oil & Other Fossil Fuel Projects Wednesday, November 16, 2011

25. Impacts: Coal Versus Oil Sands Thursday, November 17, 2011

26. Trains: 'Here's Mud In Your Eye'Thursday, December 15, 2011

27. Coal: Why Can't We Citizens Have A Strong Voice? Friday, December 30, 2011

28. Coal: Specific Actions Bellingham Must Take Sunday, January 1, 2012

29. Coal & Climate Friday, January 27, 2012

30. Constitution, Corporations & Coal Wednesday, February 22, 2012

------------------------------------------

Constitution, Corporations & Coal

--------------------------------------------------

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. - Benjamin Franklin

No free government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism. - Andrew Jackson

Virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of of private virtue... A government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it... Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic. - Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------

Here in Bellingham, we are focused on Coal and the proposed export terminal at Cherry Point.

Behind this proposal are Corporations that stand to profit from this venture, despite any concerns expressed from the local community.

But, behind that is the Constitutional interpretation expressed only last year, that Corporations are People, and that Money represents Speech.

At what level should any of these nested -and cascading- ideas be opposed?

The answer is at ALL levels.

Of course, ultimately the most effective level is the latter, the Constitutional level.

It does take more time and effort, even though in the end solving that problem would have the effect of helping to solve a myriad of multiple problems.

But, there is a way to attack all three levels of problems, individually and collectively, which is the subject of this blog.

------------------

Finally, a great book has appeared that offers clear and achievable ideas and effective actions that we can take as citizens to put some things straight again in this country:

Corporations are not People by Jeffrey D Clements

My wife, Joan, obtained this book through Truthout and gave it to me to read, for which I am thankful.

This is by far the best analysis and simple action plan I've yet to read about doing something positive about correcting some basic problems that threaten the very foundations of our republican form of democratic government.

It actually gives me hope!

Of course, the actions suggested will take work, but they hold the promise of having us -the public- in control of very important changes most of us already wish to make in our government.

Below, is a quick summary of the three steps the author suggests, all of which are positive steps in their own right.

Taken together, they would go a long way toward correcting the excesses in lobbying, elections, tax fairness, bail-outs, financial regulation, outsourcing jobs overseas, corporate accountability, campaign finance, wage equity, corruption of public officials, crony capitalism, and the undue influence of transnational corporations on society, the environment and local governments.

To me, as well as many others -including libertarians, 'Tea Party' supporters, Occupy protesters and others- those actions are both necessary and overdue, yet Congress continues to be paralyzed to act in any meaningful way!

If, for other reason, its time for the public to assert its power and get these things to be part of a serious national discussion, with definitive action as the end result.

That public effort alone can give Congress and the Supreme Court the clear direction they so desperately need to get us back on the honest track our Founders intended.

------------------

• First and most important, we need to work for the 28th amendment to the Constitution, a People's Rights Amendment, to reverse Citizens United and corporate constitutional rights.

• As the second step, we must insist, rather than beg, that corporations actually serve the public interest. Corporate law should ensure that corporations do not really take benefits from the public; they must also fulfill duties to the book.

• Third, we need to make election and lobbying laws that punish, rather than reward, corrupt crony capitalism and bribe-based politics.

---------------

Here's the proposed Amendment XXVIII:

Section I. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section II. The words people person or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate established by the laws of any state, the United States or any foreign state. Such corporate entities are subject to any regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section III. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and all such other rights of the people, which lights are inalienable.

----------------

While it may not be immediately obvious how such a short and clear Amendment might be effective, here is my take;

The Citizens United decision early last year by the US Supreme Court essentially culminated a long campaign by corporate interests that determined -by a 5-4 margin- that corporations are people and money is speech.

Those remarkable expressions simply defy reality to me!

In fact, they are so ridiculously Orwellian that its hard for me to believe that our highest court could have made such a decision.

But, they did. And now we're stuck with the results, at least until we can get their attention in no uncertain terms.

---------------

Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions. - Theodore Roosevelt

---------------

Here are some links that are helpful in revealing resources available to aid this cause:

About Citizens United:

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited

http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.com

http://www.asbcouncil.org

http://www.businessfordemocracy.com

http://www.amiba.net

The Constitutional Amendment Campaign & the People's Rights Amendment:

http://www.corporationsarenotpeople.com

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://www.businessfordemocracy.com

http://www.movetoamend.org

http://www.pfaw.org

http://www.citizen.org

http://www.democracyisforpeople.org

http://www.commoncause.org

http://www.united4thepeople.org

http://www.prwatch.org

http://www.corpwatch.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.wethepeoplecampaign.org

Corporate Charter Reform & Corporate Accountability:

http://www.corporationsarenotpeople.com

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://www.prwatch.org

http://www.corpwatch.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.corporatepolicy.org/

http://www.greenchange.org/

http://www.bcorporation.net/

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.poclad.org

http://www.celdf.org

http://www.corpethics.org

Corporations for the 21st Century:

http://www.asbcouncil.org

http://www.bcorporations.net

http://www.svn.org

http://www.ceres.org

http://www.newvoiceofbusiness.org

http://www.slowmoney.org

http://www.mainstreetalliance.org

http://www.amiba.net

http://www.newrules.org

http://www.livingeconomies.org

Cleaning the Swamps: Campaign Finance & Lobbying Reform:

http://www.publicampaign.org

http://www.demos.org

http://www.commoncause.org

http://www.citizen.org

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org

http://website.informer.com/fightwashingtoncorruption.org

http://www.opensecrets.org

http://www.lmv.org

Other Resources:

http://www.acslaw.org

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org

http://www.brennancenter.org

http://www.theusconstitution.org

http://www.transpartisancenter.org

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/

--------------------

Constitution: Living Document or Parchment Guarantee?

This article caught my eye recently because it touches on a subject near and dear to my heart, as well as most people I know. It concerns our Constitution and a comparison of it to other, more recent Constitutions, written and adopted by nations inspired largely by the example America has made to the world - which is overwhelmingly good.

But, anyone with a conscience does know that our Constitution -excellent as it is- is not perfect; in fact, in some regards, it is clearly deficient and/or lacking in some of the freedoms we think we have. Some do simply choose to believe our Constitution IS perfect and we should not even think about changing a word, letter or a punctuation mark in it; which extremely difficult to do anyway under the rules that have been adopted.

“the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today."

You can speculate on the reasons for this ultra-conservative view as well as I can and maybe better, but why is such a position the one of choice for so many? To me, it seems that some people put so much faith in the lofty principles our Constitution embodies that any attempt to revise, clarify or add to it by Amendment amounts to heresy. Of course, that view amounts to defending individual belief systems, much like religion; which of course is protected under the very Constitution in question! How's that for circular reasoning? Maybe a better word than 'reasoning' is argument.

I suspect our Constitution offers different perceptions to different people, with just enough vagueness to guarantee wiggle room for those who want to debate their favored issue. Maybe that's why our Founders decided to let Thomas Jefferson write the first draft; he knew how to appeal to higher values without being too specific. Never mind that improvements would be needed later; it was necessary to get a document that could pass muster at the time -and our Constitution was the best compromise available to keep our shaky union together against outside forces. Why else would politics be called the art of the possible?

Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.”

But, getting something passed on principle is easier than getting every eventuality covered, as we have learned from the necessity for the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments and interpretations of the Constitution. That process is ongoing, as it should be, but difficult at best because entrenched thinking has come to look upon those vague words and lofty principles as agreeing with a host of secular opinions. People feel threatened by the very idea of changing something upon which rests their faith in the system that they have come to believe benefits their individual interests. Thus, any change is defended against with all the passion that is necessary to preserve their perceived advantage. They have learned to live with the status quo and just don't want to risk changing anything that might create altered circumstances.

...."the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart."

Fortunately, there are others in the world who also admire our Constitution's concepts so much that they use it as an example to develop their own, as many countries have done. In some of these cases, the principles upon which the US of A was founded served as their starting point, but they were not entirely limited by it, because there do exist multiple possible improvements that can become an extension of it and benefit modern society.

The article cited describes research done by two distinguished professors of respected universities, one of them my own - U VA, the school founded by the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote our Constitution. Among the authors conclusions are some really interesting findings after extensive study of some 170 different constitutions; that ours is rather 'terse' by comparison and lacks clear statements of many rights now expected by many citizens.

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’'

===================

Related to the susceptibility of our Constitution to be misinterpreted and warped to the advantage of some, is the current national debate over who controls Washington and our economy.

To hear how corrupted our system has become by the over-concentration of wealth and power is troubling to most of us, including an increasing number of conservatives who prefer real facts and rational reasoning over narrow, self-serving ideology and its rampant promulgation of propaganda to an audience that has become alarmingly ignorant and susceptible to often repeated corporate rhetoric in sound bytes.

A new term has been coined to describe that mass of people who often tune into FOX News for their info-mation; Ignorati a contraction of the words ignore and ignorance.

As a modern retro-counterpart to the Illuminati of ancient times - those who dared question Church dogma - these new, 'Ignorati' simply choose to be ignorant by ignoring anything that tries to awaken them from what they prefer to hear; especially factual explanations for things they choose to believe. Now, that is truly dangerous!

A recent PBS interview by Bill Moyers with former Reagan economic advisor Bruce Bartlett is an example of what I see as push-back against the Ignorati agenda.

Bartlett's remarkable conversion from a trusted member of the conservative establishment to an outspoken critic of it's corrupted policies has earned him nothing less than total ex-communication from his former colleagues

Why has he turned against such strongly held opinions?; because he can't stand the hypocrisy of constantly touting lies to bring down our government to benefit a cabal of crazy ideologues!

I would call that the courage of an honest person - even a hero - wouldn't you?

Watch the film clip to learn why Bartlett has come to think as he does, and why he believes it may even be possible for current, self-professed Tea Party members to eventually join the Occupy Wall Street movement!

------------------------

Agenda 21: Common Sense Under Suspicion?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.

---------------------------------------==================

Today's Herald -again- carried an article describing how off-base Whatcom County has become in its latest sorry attempts at rigging GMA policy toward those same 'special interests' that have been, for years, usurping responsible government for their own selfish purposes and agendas.

That the County Council has been in the thrall of certain development interests is not news, but the actual extent of that rip-off is only now being revealed, which continues a pattern of willful deception that is destructive to both good government and the overall best interests of its citizens.

But, even with such directly incriminating evidence, some are still in denial that anything wrong has been done! Now, THAT is sadly, truly troubling, because it brings to mind the fact that we are electing people whose minds are either being controlled by ideology, or who are appallingly susceptible to persuasion by certain misguided elements in our County government, or its influential advisors.

Could our County Council's problem with responsible growth management be related to the so-called 'Tea' Party and its sometimes very strange ideas?

This Crosscut article relates similar stupid mind-sets to a strange movement against the so-called UN 'Agenda 21', a recommendation for sustainable development.

If so, that thinking is stranger than strange, and actually counterproductive to what most rational people would consider good sense!

When a people decide upon self governance, that's something of a miracle in itself; but when certain misguided segments of the population then attempt to hijack what most willingly accept as simple common sense in every one's best interest, that's stupid at worse and problematic at best.

Don't you think that such thinking needs to be reasonably justified and held accountable?

It would be very interesting to hear a cogent argument against reasonable growth planning; one that would rationally explain a few things, like why reserving farmland and open space is a bad idea, or why concentrating population, schools and business doesn't make sense, or why providing mass transit options to private transport isn't worthwhile. Aren't those things basic to prudent economic governance?

While I'm certainly open to such explanations and sincerely want to hear them, pardon my doubt since such arguments do seem so ridiculously counter intuitive.

Fortunately, there is room for considerable diversity in our country, including a certain amount of selfish self interest, but how much utter stupidity can we tolerate and still call ourselves an educated country which presumes to leadership in the free world, as well as preservation of our own basic freedoms, so presciently given us by our founders?

Alternately, perhaps those so enamored of their private 'rights' can tell us of other places where such an excess of aberrant thought has been successful over time. I sincerely hope that these folks constitute such a minuscule minority that most citizens would view them as am tempted to do; ignore them as the willful crackpots they are.

More troubling is the possibility that some who subscribe to these thoughts have actually managed to become officials, either elected or appointed, who profess to serve us here in Whatcom County- the fourth corner of sanity!

That of course, would explain some part of the silly GMA dilemma we now find ourselves embroiled in, thanks to the devious, backward and ridiculous policies that our recent and current County Council have saddled us with to our great misfortune!

Is it really possible that some misguided souls really do believe the United Nations is to blame for our problems? If so, perhaps they would agree to illuminating us into their reasoning by means of some convincing proofs.....

---------------------------------------

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

Q.E.D. is sometimes jokingly claimed to abbreviate "quite easily done". Q.E.D. can also be used to ridicule the specious reasoning of another person by mockingly attaching it to the end of a poor argument, which was not in fact successfully demonstrated or presented.

-------------------------------------------------------

Since our illustrious Whatcom County Council - in a unique reality of its own - seems to have conjured its own solutions without appreciably understanding the real problem of growth management. Perhaps, this can be partially explained -or confused- from Six Characters In Search Of An Author (by Luigi Pirandello 1921);

There is a body of ideas by now universally denominated 'Pirandellian', and here is the Maestro attempting to compress them into half a dozen lines:

…the deceit of mutual understanding irremediably founded on the empty abstraction of words, the multiple personality of everyone (corresponding to the possibilities of being to be found in each of us), and finally the inherent tragic conflict between life (which is always moving and changing) and form (which fixes it, immutable).

If this sounds a bit crazy, it may be, but no more so than do our Councillors, in real life!

They seem all too willing to substitute their own agenda for that adopted by the people of WHATCOM COUNTY, the State of Washington, and good sense, in general.

Under such circumstances, what are our remedies as citizens, other than lawsuit, recall, or voting them out of office? It has been obvious that they are resistant -even deaf- to reasonable arguments and appeals to their better judgement, at least until now. This situation would be laughable, if it were not so appallingly stupid -and costly to taxpayers!

I call upon our new County Executive to take this matter under serious advisement, and to demand that proper procedures and competent directions be given to those Council members who so obviously need it!

If they are to serve the public, they need to respect the public with proper education, understanding, discourse and decision-making. Otherwise, why are they there?

-------------------------------------------------------