The Fort Ord RAB

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

I wanted to take a moment to respond to Michael Meuser's message
conerning the recommendation on disbanding the Fort Ord RAB.

As many of you may recall we at CAREER/PRO posted our Interim
Recommendations for the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory about two months
ago. What follows below is the unfortunate final recommendation to 
which Michael Mueser refers and that we felt compelled to make.

This newsgroup has been a vehicle for many discussions over the past
three years; we feel that the exchange of information has been
beneficial to everyone. It has always been our policy at CAREER/PRO to
post all relevant messages that we receive. That is, we don't censor
material because we believe it contains inaccuracies. We (or other
members of the newsgroup) respond if appropriate.

In the case of the Fort Ord RAB, we have held back from posting our own
response to information because we were functioning as a mediator. Now
that we are not longer playing that role, we expect to go beyond the
posting of our reports.

What has happened at Fort Ord is truly unfortunate and there are some
critical lessons to be learned from that experience. It is with this in
mind that we post our final recommendation and encourage open discussion 
on these issues.

Aimee Houghton
Program Coordinator
CAREER/PRO
****************************************************************

.TO: The Members of the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board
.FROM: Lenny Siegel and Aimee Houghton, SFSU CAREER/PRO
.SUBJECT: Future of the RAB
.DATE: October 6, 1997

It is with great reluctance, disappointment, and sadness that we file
this report. We have devoted the past several years to the promotion of
the concept that the affected public should and can play a constructive
role in the oversight of military environmental activities and other
hazardous waste cleanup. We have supported community-based advisory
boards as the principal mechanism for such oversight.

It was to show the viability of this concept, even in difficult
circumstances, that CAREER/PRO accepted the invitation of U.S. EPA,
backed by a vote of members of the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board,
to mediate ongoing disputes there. Until Thursday night, September 25,
1997, we felt we had made significant progress. The Board had accepted
our first recommendation, the re-recognition of Curt Gandy as a Board
member. It had successfully participated in three study sessions. And it
was poised to deliberate over our remaining proposals.

In the two-and-a-half weeks prior to the September 25 RAB meeting, a
dispute emerged between the Army and certain members of the Board. These
members of the board proposed a business meeting agenda, based upon an
agenda committee meeting that they dominated September 8. The Army
proposed a study session, based upon the August agenda committee
meeting. The Army also asserted that its decision, earlier this year, to
hold business meeting only once a quarter meant that only a study
session was possible.

We determined that neither agenda committee meeting followed the letter
of the Board's by-laws, since none of the "review committees" of the
Board had actually elected representatives to the agenda committee. We
were particularly concerned that one RAB member actually claimed to hold
two votes on the agenda committee.

Furthermore, we objected to the Army's position that the RAB could hold
business meetings only once a quarter. We had recommended the same
thing, but the RAB had not yet acted upon our recommendation. We
elevated our concern to Army headquarters, and as a result we were asked
by the Army and EPA to seek a compromise agenda.

We came up with what we considered a Solomon-like agenda, with a study
session followed by a business meeting. The combined agendas,
incorporated discussions of all the issues raised by the proponents of
the business meeting. We also included discussion and action on our
recommendations, something that the RAB itself had asked for at its last
business meeting. The Army mailed out the agenda.

The installation did compromise by agreeing to discuss all issues of
substance raised by RAB members, as well as our recommendations.
However, it did not agree to put the combined agenda up to a vote at the
beginning of the evening. This constrained our ability to turn to the
entire RAB for guidance once the meetings began.

At the start of the scheduled September 25 study session, one member of
the RAB, apparently supported by a few others, prevented the Army's
consultant from making his presentation about the proposed remediation
strategy for the base's munitions impact ranges. By delaying any
discussion of substance, they similarly prevented discussion of the plan
for controlled burns at the base.

We found this disruptive behavior reprehensible, for four reasons:

1) This small faction denied the community the opportunity to learn
about and discuss key issues in the Fort Ord clean-up - specifically the
cleanup of unexploded ordnance and the supporting "burn plan."

2) These disruptive members of the RAB consciously and deliberately
wasted taxpayers money by preventing hired experts from making their
scheduled presentations. Additionally, they drove away community members
who had attended specifically to hear about munitions cleanup and the
"burn plan."

3) CAREER/PRO had incorporated all of these members' agenda items into a
compromise agenda, allowing them the opportunity to address all of their
concerns. Their behavior actually impeded their own efforts.

4) These people demonstrated that it would never be easy to work out
serious substantive issues because they were unwilling to function in a
cooperative, civilized manner. In fact, it appeared that the goal of
their display was to undermine the remainder of our recommendations and
indeed the RAB itself.

Consequently, we recommend that the Army, EPA, and Cal-EPA suspend the
operation of the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board. It's not serving
its purpose.

There are many members of the communities around Fort Ord who have
concerns about the Army's approach to cleanup, but from the interviews
we conducted - of virtually every RAB member plus other members of the
community - they do not support the hostile approach taken by a small
faction which frequently claims, in local, regional, and national
forums, to represent the entire community.

To prevent the total disenfranchisement of other concerned members of
the community and provide some degree of community oversight, we also
recommend that the responsible agencies institute regular community
workshops similar to the study sessions that we organized, but with no
membership or internal procedures.

At the September 25 meeting we were personally attacked for attempting
to proceed with the meeting. We anticipate future assaults on our
integrity in response to these recommendations. Nevertheless, we believe
we have acted fairly throughout the process, and we are willing to stake
our reputations as public advocates on the findings and recommendations
included in this report.

Finally, the current situation at Fort Ord is the result of years of
missed opportunities. Responsibility for this situation is shared by
many parties. Once the dust has settled, we plan to prepare another
report, identifying lessons learned from the Fort Ord RAB experience.