By John Stark
Randel Perry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ point man for environmental review of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, has shared his thoughts on the brouhaha over access to the microphone at recent “scoping meetings” to get public comment on what issues need study.
David Stalheim shared an email message from Perry that was sent to him and a number of other people. (An email like this from a public official discussing public business is legally subject to disclosure.)
Perry, who was at last week’s Ferndale scoping meeting, wrote:
“I also had discussions with a few people at the meeting about this issue. The concern expressed was that the project proponents had ‘stacked the deck’ for verbal comment. It’s interesting that we did not hear this complaint at the previous three meetings where project opponents used the same tactic to secure a majority of the verbal comment opportunities.
One of the people I talked to provided an interesting viewpoint. She was disappointed that ‘those people’ had dominated the public testimony and felt that we had not provided an adequate forum for public debate on the issue. It was her opinion that we should allocate a 50/50 split on the numbers between the pro and con factions to facilitate a balanced discussion on the issue and to ensure that we (co-leads) were not swayed in out permit decision by unbalanced input.
It was evident that her perception was based on what she believed the meetings were for as opposed to what we are trying to achieve. I explained to her the nature of scoping meetings, the types of constructive comments we were looking for (impacts, alternatives, etc.), and that all comments, regardless of how they are submitted or how often they are repeated, held equal weight.
I also explained that it was not the agencies’ job at scoping meetings to provide a public forum for debate or to facilitate a discussion on whether or not permits should be issued. Debates can be organized by other entities and the public will have future opportunities to express their opinions to the agencies on permit issuance.
I emphasized the fact that we had discussed various methods for allocating numbers and felt that the “first come, first serve” approach was the fairest. The problem has been the actions of other organizations who use our process to further their agenda and we have no control over this.
I think the solution to this is further outreach and public education. Maybe we need a stronger message up front, before the verbal comments session begins.” (end Perry email)
…seems reasonable. If the speaker wants to burn their time (either for or against) that’s their business. I also agree that on both sides, there was very little constructive commentary except ‘hooray for our side’.
It’s obvious from this that Stahlheim wrote a letter of complaint to the COE expressing concern of a stacked pro terminal group.
Apparently, to David, the ‘against faction’ are the only group permitted to stack the speakers podium?
Might have been better to have these meetings be informational in nature (what is an EIS, what is scoping, what sort of comments are we looking for. Stuff like that) with a ‘written comment’ drop box instead of having verbal comment periods that did not allow for everybody to speak. I realize the comment period gives people a way to sort of blow off steam or to publicly state support or disapproval, but this hasn’t been a very productive process so far except maybe to stir the pot.
Question for Randel Perry: What’s the definition of Environmental Impact Study? Physical environment or is the economic environment included? Is jobs a legitimate comment?
I assumed the EIS was strictly to measure and catalog negative affects on the physical environment. Next step is to decide what mitigation or compensation is required to permit the project.
But, maybe Environmental Imact Study also means to measure and catalog the positive affects to the economic environment. And then the positives are tallied up with the negatives with their respective weights in some kind of grand calculus. I don’t know.
In the interests of being good stewards of public money, the Corps and DOE hopefully made the decision on whether or not to include rail in the EIS before choosing the relevant venues for scoping meetings. So the meetings in Spokane and Vancouver prove that statewide rail is in the EIS. But what about Montana?
I tend to agree. This philosophy should also apply to other controversial public meetings on other topics we’ve seen here in Bham in the past. Pros or cons can hold their pep rallies on their own time….
Here’s a helpful link WahtoYah: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/handbk/hbch03.html
In Spokane, (and probably Bellingham too- which may have been the reason for the complaint) many of the people waiting to get into the public hearing concerning the proposed increase of coal trains coming through Spokane wore bright green shirts that read “Let’s Get Back To Work!” Pro-coal groups had hired the people as temporary workers to get one of the limited opportunities to speak. BTW the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers needs to get a new “point man”-Mr. Perry sounds defensive and not very helpful. The public (not private enterprise) pays his salary.
QQQQ, that simply isn’t true. Indeed, Perry commented to me after Mt. Vernon about the quality of the comments. See the December issue of Whatcom Watch for more descriptives about the first 3 hearings.
In answer to QQQQ.
You must not have attended the Ferndale hearing. I was there throughout. The only constructive testimony came from the opponents of the Cherry Point project. Frankly, I was a little disappointed in the pro terminal speakers. I had expected proposals for mitigations, etc. None forthcoming. You will find that what I am telling you is accurate when the Ferndale testimony is available to the public.
As to those paid to stand in line – the reason there is a problem with that is that it subverted the public’s ability to comment. People from Ferndale and Birch Bay who brought others with them and who came specifically to provide scoping questions for their area told me that they held later numbers but were not able to speak as the time was up. One old gentleman was told by someone that there were no seats and that he would not be able to speak anyway and so he went home.
I would also like to add that for a group like SSA Marine which is advertising all the time that they want to pay living wage salaries and to honor union workers to hire day laborers is something of a shock.
Mr. Perry misunderstands the problem. While it’s one thing for citizens who wish to speak to arrive early and stand in line, it’s another for the corporation bringing forward a proposal to hire day laborers so that citizens are prevented from speaking to their community.
That’s just wrong.
SSA Marine was PAYING people to overcrowd a public meeting and shut down the voices of opponents of their project? Isn’t this an abuse of the public hearing process?
We already know that SSA Marine has done illegal work on the Cherry POint site. And now they are cheating by cramming a public meeting with paid shills for their project. Do you need any more arguments that this project and its proponents are greedy cheating lying scum? It stands to reason since they are serving the Communist Chinese, profiting by selling out our strategic coal reserves to the Commies.
What do you call someone who sells out his nation to the Communist Chinese? Isn’t that what a traitor does?
Perhaps a lottery among people who attend would be a better way of choosing speakers.
It is my opinion and belief that Randel Perry’s statement “The problem has been the actions of other organizations that use our process to further their agenda” is accusatory. He will no doubt need to define the organizations that he is referring to. This is problematic because of the term organizations.
In my opinion it denotes a certain prejudice. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers needs to be above prejudices.
Being a public record no doubt whether or not his statement is prejudicial will be determined by others and not by bloggers.
..insight, I watched the full hearing on Ustream. My position does not change.
Randel Perry says, “It’s interesting that we did not hear this complaint at the previous three meetings where project opponents used the same tactic to secure a majority of the verbal comment opportunities.” Well, Randel, the difference is that the opponents to the GPT did not hire workers to stand in line for them and it has been now admitted by Lauri Hennessey, spokesperson for Alliance For NW Jobs, which actually lists the 3 companies which are involved in the proposed GPT project; SSA, Peabody Coal, and BNSF as clients on their website. Lauri is a VP at Edelman, a Seattle PR firm hired by SSA. We know who ultimately and/or indirectly paid to have people stand in line holding spots for speakersat Spokane just like what happened in Ferndale when workers were also paid to hold places in line for people including the Mayors of Ferndale and Lynden to secure early speaking slots for them. So unethical, and certainly calls into question the WA Appearance Of Fairness Doctrine that I think is relevant during the EIS process and a public scoping hearing like this. I’m no lawyer so I can not be sure but it would be good to know if my thinking is correct on this. So far, SSA has shown us exactly what we can expect from them: illegally clearing approx. 9 acres of wetlands without a permit, creating “Alliance for jobs” websites in order to disseminate exaggerated job number predictions for people desperately needing jobs to hang their hopes on, paying people to stand in line to keep others who have actual scoping comments to express from doing so, and not suppling the public with the real facts about the harmful effects of coal dust from huge storage piles of coal that would be at Cherry Point and the coal dust from 18 trains from 7000 to 8500 ft in length daily rumbling through our communities and bringing traffic to a standstill at train intersections for motorists and in turn blocking emergency access, and the list goes on. The comments in the email from Randel Perry above worry me that he is not going to be fair minded and open to hearing all of our concerns.
sounds like Mr. Perry is getting a bit peeved with the numbers of people wanting to get in on these meetings. They probably should explain at the beginning that they want scoping comments, not whether someone likes or doesn’t like the project. And then if someone goes off with an inappropriate comment, just shut off their microphone. Why should the agencies listen to hours of I want it, I don’t want it. And they shouldn’t let the process be hijacked by people paid to act like they are proponents. Since by now they know what SSA did, hope they act to discount the testimony and make sure the same thing doesn’t happen at the Seattle meeting.
Birch Bay Ray, opponents of the GPT who attended the public scoping meeting in Ferndale were not paid to be there and if students received some kind of credit for attending something that is pertinent to their specialty education I see nothing wrong with that. People wanting to voice their comments regarding the potential negative significant impacts that the GPT would cause for consideration by the agency panel at the Ferndale meeting were there because they are passionate about this issue, not because they are getting paid to line-hold for people including some public servants. So, rather than describing it as “deck-stacking” let’s call it what it is: people who want a voice in the EIS process. Also, why do you equate our concern for our health, the environment, our blocked access to emergency services, potential property value declines, and more with being “anti-jobs” ? That is simply not true. We all want more jobs, so for you to try and say we are “anti-jobs” is just wrong and just propaganda. The GPT project will irreparably damage our local communities and the small amount of jobs it provides does not even come close to help offset that damage to our long-term future.
To Birch Bay Ray:
Your note is nasty.
To John Stark. Is there a standard of decency for this blog?
BBR,
Shooting the messenger is a weak debate tactic generally. If your personal remarks were true, which they’re not, they would add nothing to the discussion.
Worse, though, is your claim, through your chosen screen name, to be a county resident. We’re a community, and should have respect for each other, even when we disagree.
David Stalheim – move over ! I have been and will always be glad and very proud to stand next to you. I am so glad to have a person of your caliber in this County. For those that are interested David blogs at “Get Whatcom Planning.” His blogs are intelligent, well-referenced and make for good reading. I encourage you Birch Bay Ray to partake. You might learn something.
I was at the scooping meeting. No one bought me lunch or bought me a shirt. By the way thanks for the e-mail. I did live a written comment at the meeting. I hope the do more than just read it.
Really? What’s up with the personal attacks? I am disappointed at the tone this conversation has taken. Birch Bay Ray, the very fact that you refuse to put your real name down implies that you know that you’re wrong in taking this argument personal.
I don’t know David’s background and all I’ve observed from him is active, polite community advocacy that is fact based, lacking of emotion or hysteria. In fact, everything I’ve ever seen from him adds to the conversation in a substantive way.
That is more than I can say for your comment, Birch Bay Ray.
What’s up with the personal attacks? It’s absolutely uncalled for and not appropriate in this or any forum. Birch Bay Ray, the fact that you’re not using your real name implies that you know that your comments are underhanded.
While I don’t know of David’s background, what I’ve seen from him in our community is thoughtful, rational and helpful. Every time I’ve seen him participate in a community forum (the Herald, blogs etc), it’s been fact-based and devoid of emotion. And, more importantly, his comments always add to substantive discussion.
That is more than I can say for your comment, Birch Bay Ray. It was absolutely personal and uncalled for. As a long time community member, I’m disappointed. That’s not how we treat people in our community.
I sent the email to John only in the hopes that the Herald would do more further indepth reporting on this issue. I did not send it to impugn the character of Mr. Perry or Ted Sturdivant, WDOE Director, who also promptly replied to my concern that these meetings have gone awry and are no longer serving their useful purpose.
I firmly believe that all three agengies will do their best to be fair and neutral in this process. I have refused to wear any stickers for or against this proposal at these meetings as they are intended to be simply fact finding missions.
But, after Thursday’s debacle, I was deeply disturbed that people’s access to the public process is now open to the highest bidder. What laid off union worker can I pay a family wage job (not a temporary job like SSA, et al have employed) to stand in line so that I – or someone else, can get an opportunity to speak? I have seen the same spokesperson for Gateway speak at all three of the meetings I have attended. How many citizen voices have you muted by your insistence on getting yet one more opportunity to speak?
Birch Bay Ray – perhaps you can step out from behind your cowardly libelous comments and use your own name. Better check your facts before you speak. If you want the Mayor’s phone number in Wenatchee, please let me know. I’d be glad to put you in touch with reality.
As for Get Whatcom Planning, I would urge people to read Jean’s brilliant writing on this subject at http://www.getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com/2012/12/coal-terminal-special-how-1-scopes.html and http://www.getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com/2012/12/coal-terminal-special-how-1-scopes.html.
The best solution is for each side to hold their own meetings and send the public comments to the scoping committee. No one is listening to the other side and as long as the comments get to the committee, that is all that matters.
Somehow, I don’t think that the turn outs will be as large, but interested people will show up.
Just a reaction, but it seems to me the City of Bellingham will be ruined if this project is approved. It is now considered a very desirable destination for retirees. All that ocean front real estate and beautiful parks will be destroyed if coal trains are permitted through there on the level that is being planned here. Noise, air and water pollution, traffic congestion- sounds like a nightmare. Many more jobs will be lost than gained.
David, I was alone, I believe, in supporting the court that ruled a newspaper could not shield an anonymous blogger and had to respond to a court order to provide the blogger’s registration information so a defamation plaintiff could i.d. her defendant. I don’t believe all speech is protected, and the above is a great example. Just saying.
Totally agree Terry. BBR – take official notice of this warning.
What’s up with the personal attacks? It’s absolutely uncalled for and not appropriate in this or any forum. Birch Bay Ray, the fact that you’re not using your real name implies that you know that your comments are underhanded.
While I don’t know of David’s background, what I’ve seen from him in our community is thoughtful, rational and helpful. Every time I’ve seen him participate in a community forum (the Herald, blogs etc), it’s been fact-based and devoid of emotion. And, more importantly, his comments add to substantive discussion.
That is more than I can say for your comment, Birch Bay Ray. It was personal and uncalled for. As a long time community member, I’m disappointed. That’s not how we treat people in our community.
What’s up with the personal attacks? It’s absolutely uncalled for and not appropriate in this or any forum. Birch Bay Ray, the fact that you’re not using your real name implies that you know that your comments are underhanded.
While I don’t know of David’s background, what I’ve seen from him in our community is thoughtful, rational and helpful. Every time I’ve seen him participate in a community forum (the Herald, blogs etc), it’s been fact-based and devoid of emotion. And, more importantly, his comments always add to substantive discussion.
That is more than I can say for your comment, Birch Bay Ray. It was absolutely personal and uncalled for. As a long time community member, I’m disappointed. That’s not how we treat people in our community.
PS – I’ve tried to post this comment multiple times so my apologies if it shows up more than once.
What’s up with the personal attacks? It’s absolutely uncalled for and not appropriate in this or any forum. Birch Bay Ray, the fact that you’re not using your real name implies that you know that your comments are underhanded.
While I don’t know of David’s background, what I’ve seen from him in our community is thoughtful, rational and helpful. Every time I’ve seen him participate in a community forum (the Herald, blogs etc), it’s been fact-based and devoid of emotion. And, more importantly, his comments always add to substantive discussion.
That is more than I can say for your comment, Birch Bay Ray. It was absolutely personal and uncalled for. As a long time community member, I’m disappointed. That’s not how we treat people in our community.
PS – I’ve tried to post this comment more than once so my apologies if it shows up multiple times.
Bellingham Herald it has distressed me for years that:
1. You publish comments that are authored by people who don’t respect themselves, other commenters, the public and the Herald by attacking other commenters instead of stating their positions. It is an abusive practice that discredits all of us.
2. You allow nicknames, initials, etc to be used when publishing comments. I would appreciate knowing why you continue this practice. It discourages many from participating in the discourse because they don’t want to subject themselves and the community to the repeated diatribe of a few; who hide behind “nicknames”.
If increasing your readership and serving our community is your objective, I advocate publishing only comments that do not personally attack other commenters and whose authors are willing to use their full name could help you reach that objective.
SSA, evidently found a lawyer who can read, New York Times v. Sullivan.
How many on Alabama Street does it take to figure out “make no law” means make no law?
(b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement. Pp. 265-266. [p255]
LB, who are you? Either post under your name or stop this.
Mr. Perry’s response is so deliberately obtuse that I feel discouraged about a fair scoping and permitting process. Anyone think that the solution is education…. because SSA doesn’t know its unethical to pay people to stand in line to obtain limited spots? Good grief!
Wendy I agree with you. I also have doubts about the scoping and permitting process. Randel Perry’s comment “The problem has been the actions of other organizations who use our process to further their agenda and we have no control over this”does in my opinion show basis.
What agencies is he referring to and in what way did these agencies use the process to further their agenda? What does he think their agenda is?
His remark needs to be challenged. He needs to answer the questions.
The ethics and tactics used in advertising as well as paying supporters by the applicant company needs to be considered as well as the environmental impact. We need to know more about the companies who want to come to Whatcom County and build the Cherry Point Terminal. Where is this studied and examined?
Getting informed and involved is a process too. Not sure what the line up situation was at other meetings. I was only at Ferndale meeting. I have held my tongue on downgrading the “75 pro speakers” going first situation cuz I didn’t know all the facts. It sure was strange tho to come in 15 minutes into the meeting and one by one see “pro” speakers. After 26 we went out to see what the deal was.
Aside from that, I suppose coal is the only product available at good money to be transporting? Clean shipments might be different.
The person mentioning that Bellingham will be ruined for retirees who would come here could be true. This area is so beautiful and we try to keep it clean, this coal bit is so counterproductive. There must be wonderful alternatives that better suit our area.
Ferndale had lots of pro Gateway Terminal attendees than I see other hearings. When jobs aren’t the focus , people are more thoughtful about the environmental impact. We all want jobs, lets have Good jobs.