Recommendations to disband Ft. Ord RAB?

[sbstarks@elite-limo.com]

I hate to say but alas it is true that the recommendation to disband the
RAB was proposed. In fact I think a subsequent email by Aimee discloses
that report. There are several facts that are not entirely accurate : 

1) The military in my opinion has did a lot to try and be a good citizen
in providing the resource for concerned citizens , in fact I have had
more problem getting information from the US-EPA and from fellow RAB
members than I had from the military. 

 I was new, unfamiliar and I do have a distrust for anyone footing a
bill, there is a natural tendency to try to minimize the cost, common
sense, although not completely ethical. The military was helpful in
explaining technical terms to me and others, they provided information
when requested and further clarification when the issue was cloudy. I
learned a lot from them. I also learned a lot from others. I learned
that there are huge egos involved and rampant paranoia. This is what
prevented the RAB and concerned members from doing the necessary
advisory role. 
2) The military brought in facilitators to try and make the meetings run
smoother not to waste money. In fact at a recent meeting where the
fateful decision was made to recommend dissolving the Ft. Ord RAB, there
was supposed to be a technical presentation on some important clean up
issues. This was to satisfy the few individuals that perceived
Machiavellian manurvors by the military and other public members to
keep the public unaware. It failed. It did not satisfy them at all. We,
the taxpayers, wasted money on that night because a) it costs money to
have the consultants there b) it cost money to have a mediator there who
was unable to do their jobs c) it will cost us in the future through
litigation costs and mayhaps medical ailments that may occur because the
clean up was not adequately reviewed. I may be taking to logical of an
approach, but maybe common sense is, (was) needed in the situation. 

3)Career/Pro was brought in over my objections, I felt that there was no
way for them to make the situation better, nor was I entirely
comfortable with an unknown entity. But I however resolved to work as
best as I could with them, and let them know how I felt about what was
occurring ( I was one of the so-called military stooges ) The initial
recommendation was not to dissolve the RAB, but to hold workshops to
bring the community members together, to get the necessary environmental
presentations and provide the public input. The first time they tried
it, it worked, Lenny was amiable to comments that were made concerning a
perceived abruptness to the meeting and adjusted accordingly, the second
meeting also went well. The subsequent meetings after the preliminary
recommendation was released did not. You only have to have been here and
to know the participants who initiated the whole argument to know why.
It did not provide a blanket condemnation, it did not point fingers, and
it was in the end fair. There are some people who do not want fair, they
want confrontation. 

There were a lot of missed opportunities in regards to the RAB, most of
all it was with the founding members, they should have made sure that
everyone would have been assured of participation, that everyone would
be brought up to speed, and that there should be no barb wired fences
around participants, a wall like that keeps ideas and the free flow of
information from both coming in and going out, and all the result of it
was to see a front page article in our local newspaper concerning the
RAB and Career/Pro's report and a sense that my last year has been for
naught.