Part 3 covers July, 2018 to December, 2018. The full document can be found here. Part 2 finished up with the questioning of whether or not proper procedure had been followed for the creation of the YFYF website. The document below starts with trying to clean up the mess with disclaimers, followed by the SVS invoice for the second quarter of 2018. Starting on page 5 are results from observer impressions of the Salmon Challis forest planning meetings. One observer noted the forest plan efforts were being "picked on" by a small vocal group, Custer-Lemhi Resource Advisory Council, which is a citizen group with whom the forest service is supposed to be collaborating with. It is also noted the forest service is "working well" with the Central Idaho Public Lands Collaborative (CIPLC). But this would be expected since the CIPLC was created by SVS and is comprised primarily of non-governmental organizations, forest service members, and others, with little citizen involvement. It is a group that primarily includes individuals who hold the same perspectives on how forest planning should be done. Not what citizens want, but what these groups want. In an effort to placate the Advisory Council a special three hour meeting was held with them without forest service personnel. Why did the forest service create a group through SVS and not with citizens? The upshot of the impression was that forest service planning personnel had concerns over the attention the Advisory Council was getting. If this issue was about having citizen involvement why would they be concerned over this? Perhaps because those citizen concerns did not align with the mission the forest service, with their SVS partnership, had already decided upon. Of course SVS thinks they are being inclusive, even though citizens have complained that their voice is being shut down or ignored in meetings. The next observer's impression was more accurate, "Communication between all three groups seems to be a major problem", and that "lines of communication are seriously broken". Some of his recommendations included bringing in an outside facilitator, insist that SVS be more inclusive, and help the Advisory Group be more positive. Perhaps the third observer had them most accurate impression, the concern over "the obvious close relationship between the paid staff of Salmon Valley Stewardship and out FS collaboration specialist who worked as the executive director of the organization prior to accepting the FS position." This observer captured the true essence of the problem, the embedded relationship between the forest service and the non-profit SVS. He suggested suspending the revision until the entire community could be engaged. Yes, this alliance between the forest service and a non-governmental organization should end. These alliances are the problem with our government. Decisions are already made by this collusion and why citizens have no voice. By August, page 12, a new agreement was being drafted between the forest service and SVS due to some procedural changes in the forest service, with notice that Ms. Townley would be transferring to the WO (Washington Office) on page 13. By September, page 14, the decision for Region 4 to get out of SVS by 2019 was made and removal from funding by December 31, 2018 on page 15. The third quarter invoice of SVS is on page 16. What better solution to fix this problem than to move the website to another forest service office and create a new forest service advisory council, page 18. Do they realize reinventing this mess with another place and group does not absolve them of the inappropriate handling of it from the start? A detailed meeting note between the forest service and a citizen begins on page 21 describing all of the biases in the forest revision planning process. The forest service should take a hint at this, all of the issues raised point out how the revision planning process is contaminated by federal and non-governmental partnerships. From these communications it is apparent the forest revision process between the forest service and SVS has been a concern, enough to the point that the whole project is being moved out of Region 4. Part 4 will cover communications from 2019.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |