National RAB Caucus

[Polly Parks <pparks@igc.org>]

It seems to me for a "community" based caucus to be successful in our
political context it also needs representation from groups within RABs
that reflect the governance of that community at both the local and
state level. RABs also includes this type of membership as well as
citizens. I do not see this being discussed in the NRAB postings thus
far [other than the comment in this posting "different from the military
and regulators"; frankly I think it is a mistake to lump the two
together]. 

If the to-be-established NRAB sees itself as being inclusive, I do not
think you will gain much by excluding allies from the start. While it
may be difficult for regulators to join (though its worth exploring),
many RABs also include elected officials or representatives of other
local governance bodies. If a key goal of the NRAB is to develop a
focused, common agenda for articulating concerns to D.C. and regions, I
can see no reason to exclude anybody who is not prohibited by law from
undertaking that type of education and advocacy. Of course it is more
work, but you will bring in forces who have significantly more resources
than most community members. It would also affect structure as people
working in a coalition together do not start from a common perspective. 
But then the common objectives they
develop have much more weight.

I would like to see some discussion of this. Otherwise, I am worried
that the NRAB will simply become a parallel group to networks such as
the Military Toxics Network which already exists. That is not bad in
and of itself; parallel groups can often work quite well with each
other, and CareerPro and MTN are an excellent example. It is just a
mistake I think to believe RABs are made up of merely military and
amorphos community. 

Thanks.

Polly Parks