Re: RAB Guidelines

[Bill Skubi <coho%islander@islander.whidbey.net>]

I brought this point up at our local RAB meeting Jan 5 1995 for Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island, and our Navy Chair was unaware of any change. In
fact the opportunity was taken to reaffirm that every community member on
the RAB was representing a stakeholding group even if that group was a
neighborhood or single family unit, as is true in one or two cases.
Having reported this I would also like to report that I think there is a
particular move on to define and operate the RAB at Whidbey as suits the
command structure at the base whether or not it conforms with DoD
guidelines.
Bill Skubi.

On 17 Dec 1994 meuser@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:

>
> I'm wondering if anyone can shed some light on why the DOD RAB
> guidelines dropped FFERDC language that says, "... representatives
> of citizen, environmental and public interest groups" in favor
> of "...community members should reflect the diverse interests
> within the local community"? The new guidelines also say that
> each individual should provide advice as an individual, not as
> a group.
>
> One interpretation is that DOD, as reflected in the new RAB
> guidelines, is attempting to assure that there is as little
> agreement among the RAB members as possible thus reducing
> the potential for any effective opposition to their complete
> control over the remediation process.
>
> I'm interested in any of your interpretations of this.
>
> I am following the RAB process at Ft. Ord. I'd love to hear
> from RAB members at other bases. What concerns do you have?
> The Ft. Ord RAB is now in the process of rewriting their
> by-laws for the 8th time. Have your by-laws been finalized?
> Are you happy with the results?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Meuser
>
> A
>
>
> Michael R. Meuser
> Sociology Board
> Stevenson College
> University of California
> Santa Cruz, CA 95064
> 408-458-4245
> meuser@cats.ucsc.edu
>