Fort Ord Update: Longer version

[meuser@cats.ucsc.edu]

Hello - a few days ago I posted an abbreviated version of this post.
My apologies to those who already recieved it. I hope the new
information makes the reading worthwhile.
-------------------------------------

Thursday, July 25th, was a dark day in Fort Ord RAB history. 
Recently, provisions in the RAB bylaws, intended to ensure that the 
RAB members are experienced, committed, and knowledgeable, were 
twisted by the Army to confuse RAB members in an effort to enforce 
some perceived two year term limit on RAB membership. Of the seven 
members who had reached their "two year term limit" only one member 
was not reinstated. Curt Gandy, the recently elected Community Co-
Chair, Ordnance Committee Chair, and community member who originally 
pushed the Army to form the RAB, who worked day and night to learn all 
he could about the restoration and reuse of Fort Ord and share this 
understanding with others, did not make the cut. In an unprecedented 
closed-door meeting the ad hoc selection committee, consisting of 
representatives of the CRWQCB, EPA, Cal-EPA, plus two appointees of 
the acting Community Co-Chair and the acting Co-Chair herself voted to 
accept the re-application of the six others, but not Gandy. At the 
July 25th RAB meeting the RAB voted to accept the decision of the ad 
hoc selection committee, though a quorum of the voting members was not 
attained for the vote. 

At this RAB meeting two members of the RAB attempted to make the claim 
that the ad hoc selection committee and its decision was not 
legitimate. Before the meeting, I personally overheard the 
facilitator, a supposedly unbiased individual, warning other members 
that this claim would be made. Predictably, the claim got no 
consideration. The acting Community Co-Chair, with the aid and 
prompting of the Army's Base Environmental Coordinator, dismissed 
motions, charges, and objections. After the vote, the former Base 
Environmental Coordinator, Joe Cochran, followed Gandy into the 
parking lot, telling Gandy that he had cost the Army a lot of time and 
money and that he (Gandy) had told lies about him (Cochran). Gandy 
says this is untrue - he told no lies. I must say, I have been 
watching the RAB for two years and in my opinion, if any time and 
money has been lost, it has occurred because the Army has stonewalled 
Gandy at every opportunity - I told this to Cochran. 

This proxy removal of a Community Co-Chair in the middle of his 
elected term raises several issues that may, unfortunately, never be 
resolved unless high level Army, EPA, and Cal-EPA representatives take 
a very hard look at the Fort Ord RAB and make drastic changes. This, 
of course, will only occur if the Army and those agencies who claim to 
protect our environment and human health, mean what they say. Gandy 
was the RAB member who demanded a facilitator be present at RAB 
meetings because he had high hopes that this would help expedite Army 
and agency responsiveness to community concerns and create a level 
playing field in which all concerns could be addressed equally. 
However, he did not get what he bargained for. Instead the RAB has 
become a "spectacle of legitimization." The Fort Ord RAB is nothing 
more than an Army contrivance that merely simulates public and 
community participation in the cleanup process. The facilitator is, 
NOT an unbiased neutral agent as expected, but an Army subcontractor 
hired by IT Corporation who has been awarded the $400 million TERC 
contract!). Originally the Army balked at the hiring of a 
facilitator, saying it would cost too much. In fact the Army quit 
having a stenographer at the RAB meetings (the most reliable way to 
gather unbiased, unedited minutes) claiming that the cost was too 
high. Now the Army seems to have no problem with the cost of a 
facilitation team of eight people, or so, with their own sound 
equipment, rules of order expert, etc. - it must be seen to be 
believed. They don't facilitate, they RUN the meetings! Folks in 
power need to take a very close look at this blatant abuse of power! 

According to the facilitator, quorums were not attained at the two 
previous RAB meetings. At both of these meetings RAB members made 
motions concerning the supposedly impending "term limit" issue that 
would have made the transition to new terms much easier for those 
members who have reached the 2 year point as RAB members - but there 
was no quorum, and no vote. A senior member of the RAB Procedures and 
By-laws Committee tried to present a Resolution to accept all of those 
who wanted to continue for another two years, but the acting Community 
Co-Chair would not allow the resolution to be heard. This, of course, 
would have meant that Gandy would have retained his community Co-
Chairmanship and the RAB would have continued to benefit from his 
experience and expertise. Clearly, this was not what the Army and the 
facilitator wanted or they would have disallowed this last vote as 
well (the vote used to ax Gandy) because a quorum was not present. 

The quorum issue is very sticky in itself. RAB bylaws state that 
members can only miss two or so meetings in a row (I believe it is 
two). If they miss more than that, they are removed from the RAB - 
but this has not occurred. The RAB roster includes many members who 
show up infrequently, if at all, yet they remain on the roster. The 
effect of this is to artificially raise the number required for a 
quorum. No quorum, no votes, no progress! However, when the Army 
wants to move forward on an issue and the Army RAB Co-Chair (who is 
also the Base Environmental Coordinator, BEC) unilaterally drops of 
those who have not been in attendance, establishes a quorum, and gets 
the vote. 

Can the Army get away with this? Probably! Is it legal - the closed 
door meeting, the vote, the roster juggling? Probably not! Will we 
ever hear the reason that Gandy was not allowed to continue on in his 
position as community Co-Chair while ALL other RAB members were 
allowed to do so? Is the community being served? NO! I understand 
that the Army is now in the midst of an internal investigation of the 
RAB. I hope that this is true. I hope too that other agencies 
including CRWQCB, Cal-EPA and EPA will take a hard look at their 
support of a dysfunctional Fort Ord RAB and finally demand the Army 
fully embrace the meaning of community participation (which is 
predicated on the Army's willingness to be truly open, responsive, and 
honest) in the restoration and reuse of Fort Ord. Otherwise it will 
continue to be an unproductive, ineffective facade whose only purpose 
is to make it APPEAR as though the community is meaningfully involved 
in the restoration and reuse of Fort Ord. In the long run, this 
hopelessly flawed process won't cut it. 
To me this does not seem to be that difficult of a task. It means 
taking a look at the wonderful documents that EPA, DoD, Army and 
Keystone have produced and making them REAL. My hope, as a concerned 
community member of the Monterey Bay Area, is that the Army, EPA and 
Cal-EPA will work to make the RAB at Fort Ord REAL before every major 
decision point has passed us by at the former Army base. There is 
little time left. 

Michael Meuser
Environmental Sociology, UCSC
meuser@cats.ucsc.edu