REGARDING THE FORT ORD RAB

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

Earlier this year, at the suggestion of US-EPA, the Fort Ord RAB brought 
in CAREER/PRO to mediate disputes among the community members of the Fort 
Ord RAB. We believe we have made a great deal of progress. Here is a copy 
of our initial report. Since we are in the midst of a delicate mediation 
process, we have a policy of not commenting publicly on the veracity of 
assertions about our role or about the role of any of the parties to the 
process.

Lenny Siegel
Aimee Houghton

*************************************************************************

July 10, 1997

Dear Fort Ord RAB Member,

Enclosed you will find CAREER/PRO's interim report and recommendations 
for the Fort Ord RAB.

A brief word about the layout of the report; we choose to be concise and 
to the point. We will be at the next Fort Ord RAB meeting on July 24, 
1997 to discuss the various recommendations. In the interim, if you wish 
to call us with questions you may do so. Please be advised, however, 
that we will both be in Amherst, MA conducting a RAB training workshop 
the week of July 14. We will be happy to take calls when we return to 
the office the week of July 21st.

While there are a certainly many issues to be addressed, we choose to 
focus on specific recommendations in response to the initial dispute we 
were asked to resolve. There are a large number of issues that arose 
out of our interviews and discussions that we hope to resolve in the 
second phase of work. It is our hope that we will be able to continue 
our work with the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board in order for it to 
be an effective vehicle through which the community can develop and 
deliver substantive advice to the Army and regulatory agencies.

Finally, we would like to thank all of you for taking the time to discuss 
your concerns with us.

Sincerely,

Aimee Houghton Lenny Siegel
Program Coordinator Director

*************************************************************************

THE FORT ORD RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD
INTERIM REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

by Aimee Houghton and Lenny Siegel
SFSU CAREER/PRO
July, 1997

SUMMARY

Since March, the CAREER/PRO staff has met individually with past and 
present members of the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), and we 
have led two study sessions dealing with substantive issues currently 
faced in the installation's cleanup program. We believe that the 
Advisory process had broken down, but we are also convinced that all of 
the participants share the goal of improving the Army's response to 
contamination at the base. Though we have found more than enough "blame" 
to go around, from the start we have stated our intention to look forward, 
rather than to identify who is responsible for past failures.

Underlying the Fort Ord RAB's procedural difficulties is a widespread 
apparent misunderstanding of the RAB's role in the cleanup decision-making 
process. Not only does the RAB not directly make cleanup decisions, but 
even where "community acceptance" is a criterion in such decisions, the 
expressed view of the RAB majority is not the only measure. However, RAB 
procedures at Fort Ord, and the attitude of many of the participants, seem 
to treat the body as if it were a city council or other local 
decision-making body.

While we do make several specific recommendations below in response to 
the dispute we were asked to resolve, we believe it is more important for 
all parties to see the RAB as a more informal body designed to inform the 
community about contamination and cleanup choices, and to provide a vehicle 
through which the community can develop and sometimes deliver advice to 
the Army and the regulatory agencies.

We recommend the following:

1. STUDY SESSIONS. Until procedural issues are ironed out, we recommend 
that the Fort Ord RAB hold quarterly business meetings and that it 
schedule study sessions, such as the two we have organized, for the other 
months. At least one of the upcoming study sessions should be a workshop 
on the findings and recommendations of the Federal Facilities Environmental 
Restoration Dialogue Committee, the body primarily responsible for the 
creations of RABs nationwide.

2. MEMBERSHIP. The RAB is supposed to be a key channel through which 
members of the community learn about and attempt to influence the 
cleanup program, and therefore it should attempt to include diverse 
views. In particular, RABs should actively seek the participation of 
individuals who devote substantial time and effort into learning about 
site cleanup. For this reason, we recommend that Curt Gandy be reinstated 
as a full RAB member.

3. LEADERSHIP. The community co-chair should be someone who has the trust 
of the widest range of community RAB members. When the Fort Ord RAB 
next votes to elect a co-chair, procedures should be in place to 
encourage the election of a consensus candidate. Furthermore, given 
the controversy - among community members - generated by Curt Gandy's 
term as co-chair, we ask that he not seek to be elected again to that 
position.

4. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. While the "Question of Privilege" resulted 
from a serious, substantive controversy among RAB memb rs, attempting 
to directly answer the "Question" will do little to improve relations 
among those members. Furthermore, we find no legal basis for future 
consideration. We recommend that it be noted and filed, with no 
further action.

5.PROCEDURES. There are numerous areas where the Fort Ord RAB's 
written or perceived procedures could be improved to encourage the 
informal interchange that we believe would best serve the community, 
the Army, and the regulatory agencies. We raise a number of specific 
questions below, but we are not seeking immediate adoption of our 
proposals. Rather, we seek to work with representatives of competing 
factions to propose revisions to the RAB bylaws.

6. METTING ETIQUIETTE. There is no way to legislate civility and 
mutual respect, and we are not convinced that a "teambuilding" 
exercise at this time would overcome existing mistrust. We are 
optimistic, however, that RAB members will overcome their person
al antipathies as they learn that others share many of their concerns 
about the Army's plans for cleanup. We do offer minor suggestions 
below, however, for RAB members as individuals .

7. INFORMAL SETTING. The physical lay-out of RAB meetings should 
reinforce the informal nature of the advisory board. We recommend that 
regular RAB meetings gradually move toward the informal setting that 
we have used for the study sessions.

BACKGROUND

Fort Ord, an Army training base, was put on EPA's "Superfund" National 
Priority List (NPL) in 1990 due to the environmental contamination 
from over 50 years of extensive military use. The Army expects to 
continue environmental cleanup, including responses at its ordnance 
impact ranges, at Fort Ord for many years.

The base was selected for closure in 1991, but even after "closure" 
some military activity remains at the facility. Portions of the land 
have already been transferred (e.g. California State University, 
Monterey Bay campus), and much more is planned for transfer to the 
Department of Interior and other public and private parties.

In September, 1993 the Department of Defense formally issued policy 
calling for the establishment of Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) at 
closing military installations. The Environmental Protection Agency 
and the Department of Defense in May, 1994 issued the joint draft 
Restoration Advisory Board Implementation Guidelines. These guidelines 
were formalized in September, 1994. This was intended to provide a 
template for the formation and workings of RABs at military 
facilities. This guidance was based on the recommendations of the 
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee's 
February, 1993 Interim Report. The Interim Report offered many 
recommendations for improving cleanups at federal facilities, but the 
one most widely implemented was formation of site-specific advisory 
boards that involve affected citizens in the cleanup decision-making 
process.

Fort Ord formed its RAB in 1994. Despite some success, by 1997 many of 
the participants viewed the RAB as "broken." In fact, by this year the 
Fort Ord RAB had developed a national reputation for contentiousness.

In January, 1997 the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 
proposed that CAREER/PRO, a project of the San Francisco Urban 
Institute at San Francisco State University, consider providing 
mediation services for the Fort Ord Restoration Advisory Board
(RAB) in Monterey County, California. CAREER/PRO currently works 
under a cooperative agreement with EPA Headquarters and the task they 
were asked to undertake fell under their existing scope of work.

At the February, 1997 RAB meeting, CAREER/PRO offered its services, 
making it clear that our goal was to make the RAB "work," not blame 
any parties for past difficulties. The RAB voted to cooperate with 
CAREER/PRO on a trial basis, and it asked that CAREER/PRO provide an 
interim report three months after beginning work.

This is the interim report. While we make recommendations for dealing 
with the key issues, we expect it will take several more months to get 
the RAB back on an "even keel."

The recommendations that follow are a result of individual interviews 
with current and some former RAB members, as well as representatives 
of the Army, U.S. EPA, and Cal/EPA. In addition to the individual 
interviews, at least one CAREER/PRO staff member has attended the 
RAB's meetings in March and April, 1997, and we led the May and June 
study sessions. Finally, both our findings and proposals grow out of 
our extensive work with Restoration Advisory Boards across the country 
for the past three years.

THE PROBLEM

The Fort Ord RAB has had a number of ongoing problems for the past 
couple of years. In September, 1995 Bregman and Company, an 
environmental consulting firm, was asked by the Corps of Engineers to 
assess the RABs problems and make recommendations. After reading the 
Bregman report, CAREER/PRO determined that the majority of problems 
still existed and to a large degree had worsened. It is not clear 
which, if any, of the recommendations contained within the Bregman 
report were ever implemented.

There is an ongoing lack of trust among community RAB members 
themselves and between some citizen members and the Army. The lack of 
trust has fractured the RAB so severely that most members believe that 
other factions within the RAB are manipulating the process to further 
their own agendas, rather than acting as watchdogs for the surrounding 
communities. This has rendered the RAB extremely ineffective, and it 
has driven both former and potential members away from the process.

While personalities and specific actions have made the problem worse, 
we believe that the underlying cause of the Fort Ord RAB's procedural 
difficulties is a widespread apparent misunderstanding of the RAB's 
role in the cleanup decision-making process. Not only does the RAB not 
directly make cleanup decisions, but even where "community acceptance" 
is a criterion in such decisions, the expressed view of the RAB 
majority is not the only measure. However, RAB procedures at Fort Ord 
and the attitude of many of the participants, seem to treat the body 
as if it were a city council or other local decision-making body.

In our experience, successful RABs do not emphasize votes or the 
official record. While RABs sometimes take votes - particularly when 
those votes reflect a consensus of community views -community members 
usually attempt to informally influence military and regulator 
decisions. When dissatisfied, they attempt to build support within the 
community at large. Our recommendations are designed to help build 
that type of RAB.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. STUDY SESSIONS. Until procedural issues are ironed out, we 
recommend that the Fort Ord RAB hold quarterly business meetings and 
that it schedule study sessions, such as the two we have organized, 
for the other months. At the May and June 1997 sessions, members of 
all RAB factions asked detailed and thoughtful questions, at times 
putting the Army and its contractors on the spot. This is exactly the 
function that RABs were designed to perform. The RAB proved it could 
put personal and control issues aside and concentrate on the more 
vital work of monitoring and advising the cleanup.

In addition to sessions focusing on pending cleanup documents, we 
recommend a workshop, for all RAB participants, that incorporates the 
following:

* Introduction to the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration 
 Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) process
* Summary of the recommendations from that committee in both their 
 Interim and Final Report
* Overview and discussion of the Joint EPA-DOD and Army RAB Guidance documents.
* Presentations by other (that is, in addition to CAREER/PRO) FFERDC 
 participants.

2. MEMBERSHIP. The RAB is supposed to be a key channel through which 
members of the community learn about and attempt to influence the 
cleanup program, and therefore it should attempt to include diverse 
views. In particular, RABs should actively seek the participation 
of individuals who devote substantial time and effort into learning 
about site cleanup. For this reason, we recommend that Curt Gandy be 
reinstated as a full RAB member. This should not be seen as an 
endorsement (or rejection) of either his views or his style of participation.

The RABs rules for adding and removing members should be clarified. 
(See Recommendation #5.) The process should attempt to be inclusive, 
and based upon the recognition that winning split votes has relatively 
little impact on cleanup decisions. That is, membership selection 
should not be used as a way of bolstering factions.

3. LEADERSHIP. The community co-chair should be someone who has the 
trust of the widest range of community RAB members. When the Fort Ord 
RAB next votes to elect a co-chair, procedures should be in place to 
encourage the election of a consensus candidate. Furthermore, given 
the controversy - among community members - generated by Curt Gandy's 
term as co-chair, we ask that he not seek to be elected again to that 
position.

4. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. While the "Question of Privilege" resulted 
from a serious, substantive controversy among RAB members, attempting 
to directly answer the "Question" will do little to improve relations 
among those members. Furthermore, we find no legal basis for future 
consideration. We recommend that it be noted and filed, with no 
further action.

For those who insist on taking a more legalistic approach, our 
recommendations may be viewed similar to a legal settlement. Gandy 
rejoins the RAB. The Question of Privilege is dropped. No party admits 
wrongdoing.

5. PROCEDURES. There are numerous areas where the Fort Ord RAB's 
written or perceived procedures could be improved to encourage the 
informal interchange that we believe would best serve the community, 
the Army, and the regulatory agencies. We raise a number of specific 
questions below, but we are not seeking immediate adoption of our 
proposals. Rather, we propose to work with representatives of 
competing factions to propose revisions to the RAB bylaws and other 
procedural documents.

* In recognition that RAB members have other personal, occupational, 
 and civic responsibilities, it should be clear that attendance at 
 meetings and other RAB events is voluntary.
* Members who wish to renew their terms should be given every 
 opportunity to do so.
* Any committee that recruits or selects RAB members should be 
 broadly representative of the diverse views and constituencies on 
 the RAB.
* Robert's Rules of Order, as a strict guideline for procedures, 
 should be dropped. Their use has not contributed to the smooth 
 running of the RAB.
* There should be a process for noting proposed changes to the 
 minutes that does not force the RAB to continue devoting too much 
 time to debating their adoption.
* Either the co-chairs or a small steering committee should be 
 empowered to make administrative decisions, especially between meetings.
* The RAB and the Army should develop guidelines on the availability 
 of documents.

6. MEETING ETIQUETTE. There is no way to legislate civility and mutual 
respect, and we are not convinced that a "teambuilding" exercise at 
this time would overcome existing mistrust. We are optimistic, 
however, that RAB members will overcome their personal antipathies as 
they learn that others share many of their concerns about the Army's 
plans for cleanup. We do offer suggestions below, however, for 
individual RAB members.

* Members and other participants in the process should avoid the use 
 of body language to indicate displeasure.
* Personal attacks on individual RAB members should not be tolerated.
* Criticism should be focused on the substantive issues of cleanup.
* When a RAB member has the floor and is addressing a particular issue 
 they should not have to compete with sidebar and whispered conversations.

As intra-RAB relations improve, we are prepared to organize a teambuilding 
workshop for all RAB members.

7. INFORMAL SETTING. The physical lay-out of RAB meetings should 
reinforce the informal nature of the advisory board. We recommend that 
regular RAB meetings gradually move toward the informal setting that 
we have used for the study sessions. The use of expensive electronic 
equipment, such as video cameras and fancy sound systems, should 
eventually be phased out.

Room lay-out should emphasize equality among the participants. In 
particular, officials should not be clustered at a head table.

Meetings should last no longer than 2 1/2 hours.

We believe that the constructive attitude shown by all RAB members at 
the last two study sessions not only demonstrates the underlying 
concern of each RAB member, but it should serve as a model for the 
gradual improvement of RAB business meetings. We have attempted to 
answer the questions that were central to the controversy we were 
asked to resolve. To get the RAB functioning at full potential, it 
will be necessary both to build trust and to rewrite (make more 
flexible) the RAB's procedures.