More On National RAB Caucus

[arc@igc.org]

The response to Arc's recent procedural proposal for discussing the 
development of a national RAB network/ Caucus demonstrates the need 
for such a process. It's important to recognize that there may be 
some rather fundamental differences of opinion with regard to how a 
national RAB effort might operate. If the development of a national 
effort is to succeed, it is important to have a process by which these 
issues can be discussed and potentially resolved. Toward that end, 
Arc proposed that discussion papers be developed, circulated and 
discussed by electronic and conventional means, and deliberated/ 
perhaps acted upon at the upcoming RAB Caucus meeting in January. Our 
goal was to begin the process of identifying points of agreement and 
disagreement in a manner that lead to the knitting together a common 
frame work for creating a network.

I would like to use the issue of participation in the network by 
individuals other than community representatives serving on RABs as an 
example. Some individuals participating in the Cpro bulletin board 
discussion have made the point that it would be important to have DoD, 
regulatory and other individuals involved in the network. I would 
like to make a counterpoint -- particularly as it concerns the 
participation of representatives of the DoD, regulators or contractors 
in Caucus/ network meetings. 

>From my point of view, a reasonable argument can be made that the 
failure thus far of RAB community members to meet in private as a 
national caucus has prevented us from developing common strategies for 
addressing cleanup and other RAB issues. This situation has in turn 
contributed to the current state of affairs wherein the DoD has 
successfully promoted dirty transfers of contaminated property to 
Congress and is in the process of increasing the health risk for the 
communities that neighbor and that will eventually be built on closing 
base properties. (The consistent pressure from DoD to save money by 
using lower reuse cleanup levels comes at a time when the Center for 
Disease Control has identified a massive increase in childhood cancers 
that may originate with exposure to environmental contamination.) 
RABs can organize themselves to make a significant and positive impact 
on cleanup locally and nationally, however the participation of the 
DoD, agencies and contractors in caucus or network discussions 
will inhibit that potential. 

*** The arguments in favor of allowing DoD, agency and contractor 
participation ***

The three most frequent objections to barring DoD, regulatory and 
contractor reps from Caucus membership are: 
>that we need to engage DoD directly in discussion to resolve issues, 
and its corollary -- they have valuable input to add to the discussion; 
>that limiting the membership of such meetings is anti-democratic; and
>that excluding them will polarize the situation and alienate the 
agencies and contractors. 

*** A counterpoint to the first argument ***

Currently all of the forums available for these discussions are either 
directly controlled by the military or by a government regulator or 
contractor. Indeed, I was under the impression that the objective of 
RABs, the FFERDC process, and the regional conferences hosted by 
Careerpro over the last several years is to bring the Defense 
Department, regulatory interests, contractors and public together in 
forums to inform each other and (in the case of RABs and the FFERDC) 
affect decision-making. With no disrespect intended, the reason many 
RAB members across the nation are talking about participating in a 
caucus is the general perception that the process is not meeting 
expectations with regard to commitment to cleanup and community participation. 

In a survey done of RAB members by Arc in 1995, over 60% believed they 
were being left out of the majority of serious decision-making around 
cleanup. Between the creation of the RAB process in 1993 and today, 
numerous decisions have been and continue to be made with regard to 
our individual bases and DoD policy regarding cleanup in which RAB 
members are nonparticipants. In fact it is my and many other RAB 
members view that despite the outward appearance of public 
participation in cleanup decision-making, our role remains 
unreasonably proscribed and the situation has worsened since this 
administration took office.

If the forums that currently exist to advance discussion between the 
DoD, the regulators, contractors and community are weak, why would 
creating another change things? I believe it would be far more 
productive to improve the forums that already exist. I think that 
instead of recreating the broadly based discussion that takes place in 
other venues, it would be far better for RAB community members to meet 
by themselves, develop recommendations to improve cleanup and 
community participation, and bring them to the appropriate forums, 
namely back to the RABs, to DERTF and the Pentagon and Congress for action.

*** The value of discussions without the influence of DoD, agencies 
and contractors *** 

Based upon three years of caucus experience in the San Francisco/ 
Monterey Bay Areas and California, the ability to meet in private to 
discuss issues and develop strategies did prove to be useful. 

Caucus participants learned that there was virtually no consistency in 
the management of the RABs or the application of guidances from base 
to base. Many RABs were not provided with copies of their relevant 
guidances, that by-laws or charters frequently contain clauses 
prohibiting individuals from discussing their perspectives with the 
press, and there was a generalized problem obtaining complete sets of 
environmental studies for review for those that wanted them - making 
it very difficult for community representatives to participate 
knowledgeably in the cleanup process. Although DoD has taken to 
posting much of this stuff on the web, some RAB members, particularly 
those from poor communities, lack computer access. In some cases RAB 
members received business cards and nick knacks, but never got minutes 
of their meetings. Some RAB members had strictly limited terms, which 
lead to the removal o f some RAB participants in the middle of their 
terms as Community Co-Chair or in the middle of developing comments on 
cleanup plans. 

Caucus meetings were frequently the first time RAB community members 
saw guidances, saw each others bylaws, and learned how members of some 
RABs were able to obtain their documents. The Caucus process enabled 
RAB members to organize around issues where there was common agreement 
and to project community voices into the process. The California 
Caucus met concurrently with the meetings of the California 
Environmental Protection Agency Base Closures Environmental Advisory 
Committee, utilizing a process similar to the one Arc articulated for 
the upcoming January National Caucus. As a result, the California 
Caucus was able to assert a RAB voice within a collaborative 
decision-making process between the State and the military regarding 
cleanup. Two of the most notable improvements successfully promoted 
by the Caucus were the opportunity for RAB community members to 
participate in Base Cleanup Team meetings and expanding the representation 
of RAB members and Local Reuse Authorities on the Advisory Group. The 
RAB Caucus was in the process of helping the California EPA develop a 
forum for discussing and hopefully resolving cleanup and reuse issues 
in the State when the Defense Department cut the Defense State 
Memorandum of Agreement budget for California resulting in the shut 
down the Advisory Group.

With regard to the question of lending DoD, Agency and contractor 
perspectives, expertise and knowledge to the discussions, we have 
found a large pool of well informed community members of RABs that 
help enormously in the discussions. Similarly we have found no lack 
of RAB community members with former or current ties to DoD, the 
regulators and contractors and therefore believe those perspectives 
will be well represented. 

The privacy of the Caucus meetings provided participants with the 
space to discuss issues free of the influence of DoD, the regulators 
and contractors. In this way when Caucus participants went to the 
regular forums they were prepared and had well articulated positions 
on issues that enabled them individually and as the Caucus as a whole 
to make better use of the venues they were involved in.

*** Counterpoints to the last two arguments in favor of DoD, agency 
and contractor participation in Caucus/ Network meetings ***

With regard to the concern about democracy, polarizing the situation 
and alienating the agencies, I simply do not share these concerns. 
Let me use a recent policy dispute between RAB Caucus members in the 
San Francisco Bay Area and some base environmental coordinators 
working on local Navy base cleanups to illustrate my point. RAB 
members asked to be able to participate in the Base Cleanup Team and 
Remedial Project Managers meetings, the meetings where the actual 
interagency cleanup decisions are discussed and made. At first, a 
number of the local base environmental coordinators responded by 
saying those meetings were closed because of the sensitive nature of 
the issues discussed such as contract performance and award 
processes. The Caucus responded stating that while it clearly 
recognized the need for closed meetings on a number of issues up to 
and including cleanup strategy discussions, there was a basic public 
interest in those meetings and that a general principle of participation 
and partnership should be the norm. After some wrangling, the 
agreement reached opened the meetings to RAB participation while 
recognizing the need for occasional private conversation. 

I believe the same is true with regard to Caucuses of RAB members. 
Just as the agencies advocate their own need to meet privately, they 
understand and have mostly respected our need to occasionally do so as 
well. Based on my own experience, the Caucuses have received a lot of 
behind the scenes support and understanding.

Finally, in my opinion, a healthy democracy allows and encourages 
groups of individuals to organize in support of their interests be 
they self or civil. In this case I believe that democracy will be 
best served by RAB community members having the space to articulate 
their concerns and agree on activities and objectives in a process 
that will make the best use of the open forums that currently exist.

*** How the upcoming Caucus meeting attempts to resolve these points ***

While there is clearly a need to meet privately to develop strategies 
and positions, the Caucus must eventually interact with the Agencies. 
After all, if there is an objective to any of this, it is to influence 
policy and performance. As indicated above, we see the best way to 
accomplish this objective is to maximize the opportunities presented 
in the already existing forums. 

The thinking behind the January national Caucus is to enable RAB 
community members to meet both privately as a Caucus and together with 
members of the Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force. This 
method would combine the need to have separate conversation with the 
need to engage the DoD, regulatory community and contractors 
directly. It is important to keep in mind that the thrust of the 
January DERTF meeting is somewhat different than that of the Careerpro 
workshop in Massachusetts, which is a frame of reference for some of 
the discussants. The DERTF is the advisory committee to the Secretary 
of Defense on base cleanup issues and the January meeting is a working 
meeting of that body. It will be considering specific issues and 
making recommendations. Arc previously uploaded a provisional agenda 
for the DERTF meeting. This is an opportunity for RAB members to have 
a voice in this important process. The Caucus will enable RAB members 
to provide input into the DERTF's meeting as a group, if there is 
agreement, and as individuals if there is not. Ultimately, the input 
that results from the private discussions of the Caucus would then 
properly initiate discussions in the exiting fora which in turn brings 
the DoD, the regulators and contractors back into the picture as the 
deliberative process wends its way to decision.

*** Summary ***

>From my point of view the question of who participates is as central 
to the core of the entity as what it is the Caucus/ network will do 
because its membership will determine its course. If the objective of 
a network of RAB members is to provide us with a forum to debate the 
military on RAB issues, than I would simply observe that we will be at 
it a very long time before we see any result. If on the other hand 
the objective is to have an impact on policy and actions, then 
narrowly focusing the membership to RAB community members is more 
likely to achieve results. 

It is for these and many other strategic reasons that I would suggest 
that the Caucus/ network meetings should be reserved for RAB community 
members. The Caucus/ network meetings should be, in part, devoted to 
developing strategies to maximize the participatory potential of 
already established venues like the RABs, DERTF, Congress and at the 
regional conferences of organizations like Careerpro and Global Green.