Vive La Difference

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

Vive La Difference

I wanted to thank Lenny for his frank observations about the differences
in approach between Arc Ecology and CAREER/PRO. There are indeed
differences between the organizations and Lenny and I have a number of
long standing disagreements on strategy and ethics. Nevertheless it has
been Arc's position that despite these differences, there is ample room
for a variety of approaches. Although Arc may
 be uncomfortable with some aspects of Careerpro's relationships with
the Defense Department and the EPA which we believe biases its approach
to cleanup, RABs, and community participation we have maintained a
policy of constructive engagement, agreeing with those things we could
support and disagreeing with those we did not.

And so toward this end, as I stated in my email of 10/1, we have sought
keep the focus of the discussion on issues of principle, merit and
strategy. We had hoped to avoid the politicization of the issue so
early in the discussion as well as the organizational rivalries that can
be typical of these efforts. Out of respect for these differences in
points of view we proposed that those interested in the national RAB
post discussion papers on Careerpro so that the various perspectives
around the issue would become clear and strategies could be evaluated
on their merits. Our hope is that the discussion paper process will
continue to move forward.

That said, I now need to turn to the email posted by Lenny on October
6th. There were a number of comments in Lenny's letter that, if left
unaddressed, would create an inaccurate impression of the Caucus and Arc
in the reader. Given that we are in the process of organizing the Caucus
meeting, we feel it necessary to respond.

*** Vive la difference ***

Let us be clear. Arc and Careerpro have major differences in strategy.
Over the last five years Lenny's strategy has been a dominant force in
shaping grassroots response to DoD cleanup activities. With all due
respect, it is our opinion that these strategies have mostly failed and
have contributed significantly toward the Pentagon's success at
reversing the environmental regulatory gains of the mid to late 1980's
and very early 1990's. Successes that were bringing the DoD into the
environmental age.

Lenny makes his perspective clear on the appropriate role for the public
in the base cleanup process when he says that he has long favored "a
representative body of RAB members that would offer national policy
advice to the Department of Defense and its regulators."

Arc has a different opinion. We believe that there are enough advisory
vehicles out there. I know Sam Goodhope, (who will be attending the
Caucus meeting) would not disagree with the observation that it is
partly the "advisory paradigm" that is currently crippling community
input into cleanup.

The problem with putting all of ones' eggs in the advisory model is that
it is a weak strategy: The advisory model places communities at a
distinct disadvantage when it comes to determining appropriate levels of
cleanup and continues the failed course of allowing the Defense
Department to be the lead agency in its own cleanup process. It is the
institutionalized passivity of the RAB process gives the DoD the ability
to roll over community concerns within the cleanup process. Community
representatives can provide in-depth technical analysis produced by
professional environmental analysts and they can rant and rave, either
way as it stands, the DoD is free to go its merry way ignoring community
concerns -- unless the community litigates. The current model for public
input provides DoD with a fig leaf of community participation. It
enables DoD to dole out just enough community involvement to satisfy
regulatory requirements, without providing enough of a role for the
public to become much more than an occasional nuisance at meetings.

This is not to say that there aren't some well functioning RABs out
there, nor am I saying that there aren't a number of regulators on the
state and USEPA level that are committed to doing the best job they can.
I think that it is fair to say however that those lucky enough to have
open and interested base commands and committed regulators need to
understand that they are in the minority and that the current model
allows those base commands and regulators lacking that same virtue to
run completely rough shod over the process. The irony is the military
couldn't even handle a weak national RAB advisory role, as Lenny
states: "The military has been unwilling to sponsor such a body, and no
one else has the resources."

That is why we have chosen a different route both in our organizational
approach and with the organizing of the Caucus meeting. We see the
development of a Caucus of RAB community members that is not dependent
upon the military's acceptance or rejection as critical to making
playing field fairer.

Arc believes that communities must be partners in the actual negotiation
of their health risk and the levels to which properties will be
cleaned. That is why we have advocated a caucus process that actually
empowers community member input into the discussions. This is another
distinction in strategy between Careerpro and Arc. Instead of
organizing regional conferences focused on panels and discussion groups,
which have their own value, Arc has chosen instead to bring RAB
community members to decision-making meetings such as those of the
California EPA and now DERTF. These forums have the double benefit of
enabling RAB community members to meet many of the critical players in
the process, somewhat like the regional Careerpro meetings, while
providing an opportunity to affect the outcome of decision-making of
committees that actually help develop policy. In our experience with
the California Caucus, RAB members did have an impact on decisions when
they voiced their opinions in forums that are usually attended by a
select few organizations. It is our hope that in January the
participants in the Caucus will chose to take advantage of the
opportunity to play a more proactive role in influencing DoD national
cleanup policy and priorities.

In another statement that illustrates the difference in perspective
between Arc and Careerpro Lenny wrote: "The group in fact behaved like a
conventional caucus, coming to meetings such as the California Base
Closure Environmental Advisory Group with proposals from the caucus as a
whole, generated at the "meeting before the meeting."

Of course it behaved like a caucus, that was the point. Instead of
duplicating the endless iterations of alleged consensus building and
advisory discussions that water down the meaning of agreement until
there is little substance left (which is then ignored by DoD), the
Caucus met, developed proposals and got action. The Caucus process
worked because it employed the same time proven methodology that every
group attempting to achieve a common purpose uses, a strategy whose
implementation the DoD has been working mightily to prevent: We RAB
Caucus participants met by ourselves, talked the issues through,
developed strategies and positions, and got organized! We were
therefore able to use the forums we were attending with the DoD and
regulators cogently, which in-turn gave us a chance to persuade the
decision-makers to implement our proposals.

Unfortunately, the strategies Lenny has successfully advocated over the
last five years have not prevented the steady erosion of the legislative
framework that protects our communities. At the risk of being accused
of being hyper critical, from my perspective over the last five years,
processes similar to the one outlined in Lenny's have amounted to
precious little in terms of actual results.
As Sam Goodhope has said, the Pentagon has over the last five years
successfully pursued a number of pieces of legislation and taken a
number of administrative actions that have weakened the regulations that
protect public's and environment's health and have increased toxic
burdens and risks to host communities. Arc wishes to see that situation
change. Many of the sites Arc is dealing with are reaching their
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision points. We no longer have the
luxury of time to ensure that the Defense Department carries through
with the cleanup process to a meaningful level at our sites. We know
from experience that the Caucus process could provide a reasonable
vehicle for RAB members to accomplish a positive change.

In-so-far as Lenny's comments about MTP are concerned, suffice it to say
there was a substantive, issue- based disagreement over the allocation
of resources within the organization, the objectives of the project and
priorities around constituency needs. In any event, MTP did not have the
funding for the position Lenny referred to in his comments so the issue
was somewhat moot. I left the board of MTP over a year and a half ago.
What MTP has done since then is its own responsibility.

I am glad to see that Lenny quite properly stated the Caucus made up its
own mind and that "proposals from the caucus as a whole, generated at
the "meeting before the meeting" were presented. In fact, Arc used the
same facilitator for the Caucus meetings, the City of San Francisco uses
to facilitate its Brownfields Working Group. The meetings were open to
all RAB community members, the decision-making was democratic and we did
no prescreening of invitees to ensure that they were "dissatisfied."

I must admit however to being somewhat uncomfortable about the
dismissive tone this section of Lenny's letter takes when discussing
"dissatisfied RAB members."

> "The caucus organizers sought out dissatisfied RAB members, so most of
the participants were those who were unhappy with progress at their
installations. The caucus did not represent the full breadth of RAB
constituencies."

The fact of the matter is simply that many RAB members ARE dissatisfied
with the RAB process. A simple review of Careerpro's own bulletin board
reveals how much vocal dissatisfaction there is with DoD's approach to
the environment. Furthermore that dissatisfaction runs across the
political and social spectrum. That many of the participants in the
Caucus meetings spoke about their dissatisfaction was completely
understandable. RAB community members don't feel compelled to organize
around issues where they and the military agree. It is those areas
where there was discord, where RAB members were "unhappy with the
progress at their installations" that Caucus participants felt the need
for help and had the most reason to organize.

What the Caucus did was to enable these individuals to participate in a
democratic process that allowed them to positively focus that
dissatisfaction into efforts to redress the concerns they had. I don't
see that as a particular problem.

I am concerned that Careerpro has had consistent difficulty
acknowledging the breadth of the dissatisfaction among community members
with the RAB process. The need to balance bad reports with good reports
dilutes and sometimes trivializes real problems, lengthens the amount of
time needed to establish general recognition of the problem as well as
the time needed to solve it.

I must also disagree with Lenny with regard to his statements that "the
caucus sought to speak for constituencies it did not represent,
including groups at the table - that is, on the Advisory Group - that
were not, for one reason or another, included in the caucus." This is
simply a DoD Red Herring. The Caucus' letter head clearly spelled out
that it spoke for only its participants and we listed only those RABs
with community members participating in the Caucus. Our public
statements were represented as the views those individuals who
participated in the making of those statements. The issue of who the
Caucus reached out to for participation is also an exercise in
misinformation. Arc obtained the list of RAB members in California from
the California EPA and we mailed meeting notices to all community
members. When funding was available, travel scholarships were made
available to people on the basis of need, not shared opinion. Folks
from as diverse a perspective as Don Zwiefel and Curt Gandy attended the
meetings (we paid for Don's plane-fare, not Curt's carfare). The
meetings were racially diverse as well. All I can say is you might
want to call some of the Caucus participants

Lenny again mischaracterizes our perspective when he writes: "ARC
Ecology prides itself on maintaining a more adversarial relationship
with the military." I find it somewhat discomforting that Careerpro
views aggressive, technically informed, community involved public
advocacy as adversarial. I campaigned for Greenpeace for six years, I
campaigned on the original Rainbow Warrior, I know adversarial
campaigning, I know confrontation. To say that we pride ourselves on
being adversarial is to misunderstand our position. We pride ourselves
on our accomplishments, not on confrontation. Our funders fund us to
solve problems, not to get in people's face or create problems.

Arc has been involved in this issue since 1984. We have provided
professional environmental technical consulting to the San Francisco
Police Officers Association SEIU Local 911, the NAS Alameda Firefighters
Association AFGE Local , and developed two successful economic
development projects under contract to the San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency. Working with the National Wildlife Service, Sierra Club, the
Audobon Society, and Alameda community groups Arc helped secure a 530
acre refuge at Naval Air Station Alameda and we are now in the process
of developing plans for a combination habitat and wetlands treatment
facility for Naval Station Treasure Island. Working together with our
local Congressional representative, the regulators and the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors we were able to convince the Army to first
establish a Technical Review Committee and later a RAB at the Presidio
Army base. Most community members on the RABs we work with believe that
we are simply pursuing a reasoned course to facilitate cleanups that
correspond to our understanding of the contamination at a site.

The presumption that Arc is adversarial is a DoD construct. DoD
continually complains that we are adversarial, but that is of course
understandable. The objective of the DoD's environmental cleanup
program is not to remediate environmental hazards, but rather to ensure
that the cleanup program doesn't cost too much. That is not our
orientation. Our objective is to see that DoD does the cleanup job it is
responsible to do. It is most certainly true that we do not believe in
coddling the military. Which is another major difference between
Careerpro and Arc. We believe in reciprocity, not appeasement. We
believe the military is as accountable for its actions as any American
and wish to ensure that they behave accordingly.

It is the Defense Department that is the adversarial entity in this
process. In just the last year the DoD has:

> Walked out of the dispute resolution process between itself, the USEPA
and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control because it
wasn't getting its way.
> Cut California's Defense State Memorandum of Agreement funding for
cleanup oversight sending the State program into serious contractions
that resulted in the virtual shut down of its public participation
program for lack of money. (It was this same Cal EPA public
participation section that wrote the original version of the DoD-USEPA
RAB guidance).
> Walked out on its RAB and Regulator Process Action Team for the
Presidio Crissy Field Remedial Action Plan, because it was tired of it.
> Fired the community co-chairs from Fort Ord, and Hunters Point and is
now attempting to fire the RAB facilitator for the Presidio--all in
violation of the respective RAB's existing bylaws.
> Misinformed Congress about the progress of their cleanup programs.
> Misinformed the public and local governments with regard to the
availability of funding for cleanup.

These are the truly adversarial actions. To say that Arc prides itself
on an maintaining an adversarial relationship with the military is to
blame community members and organizations for responding to real
misconduct from the Defense Department. While it is certainly true that
we have brought pressure to bear on the local military to achieve our
ends in negotiations, it is also true from our point of view, that
confrontation was not our first choice and we weren't the only folks
playing hardball.

If we have become less patient with the military over the years it is
because in many respects we have grown increasingly disgusted with DoD's
approach to its responsibilities with regard to cleanup, pollution
prevention, public participation and basic good citizenship. Our
passionate approach comes from the fact that we have developed something
of an overview of the issues that impact RABs on a day to day basis.
Arc Ecology is a member of six RABs in the San Francisco Bay Area and it
is that level of experience, of real dirt under the fingernails, that
informs our activities and opinions. We employ two environmental
scientists who review military environmental reports every day, provide
environmental technical support to RAB community members and negotiate
directly with the military and regulators. We read the shoddy reports,
we know the kind of work that is getting or not getting done at these
sites, and we see the contractors siphoning away many communities hopes
for a decent cleanup. Even though there are a number of individuals in
the Defense Department that value the environment; communities across
the nation are nevertheless losing ground in the effort to ensure the
Pentagon cleans up its mess.

Together with our friends and colleagues San Francisco BayKeeper, the
Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, the Earth
Trust (formerly the Sierra Club) Legal Defense Fund, the Environmental
Law Community Clinic, the West County Toxics Coalition and others, the
Campaign Against Military Pollution has successfully brought the
military into partial environmental compliance at a number of bases in
the region. But we have also had to sit through hours of idiotic
negotiations with the Navy while it sought to evade its responsibility
under the law at every turn. We have seen deliberately falsified
reports, intentional noncompliance with the requests of local regulatory
agencies and continued flaunting of the law. Not just ten years ago,
not just last year, but today. Every day.

Therefore while I agree with Lenny that it is important to praise the
military when it does something right, at the facilities we are involved
with, as well as those of the other RABs we are in contact with, those
opportunities have been rare in the extreme.

So in summary I want to repeat that I agree with Lenny when he said:

> "No one attending an ARC-sponsored caucus or CAREER/PRO-sponsored
workshop or forum should be unaware of those organizational differences.
It's not that RAB members or other activists have to choose one over the
other. There is plenty of room for both. But the two organizations are
proceeding differently."

We also agree that there are many routes to take and believe that it is
a mix of activities that will eventually bring this issue back around.
For our part, Arc is an organization dedicated to aggressively pursing
the public interest as it concerns the cleanup and control of military
pollution. We are community advocates. We are not a program of a
University with the institutional need to appear unbiased or balanced.
Nor do we have EPA or Defense Department grants and contracts to
protect. We come to the issue with a particular point of view.

We believe that as the national government, it is a federal
responsibility to remediate the pollution caused in the pursuit of the
nation's objectives. In this case, the Defense Department is the agency
responsible for the pollution. We believe it is their responsibility to
clean up the contamination and minimize their ongoing pollution of the
environment. We do not believe that Congressional budget cuts are
solely the source of the funding problem because it is our opinion that
DoD underestimates its annual budget for cleanup to begin with. We do
not believe in the argument that there just isn't enough money for
cleanup because we know that at the most, based on current DoD
estimates, it will cost less to clean up our nation's military bases
than it will to build the 20 new B2 bombers which Congress recently
approved. It is simply a matter or priority and in this case neither
the DoD nor Congress has its priorities straight. In such instances, in
a functioning democracy, it is up to the interested public to change
those priorities.

Lenny has had five years to demonstrate the effectiveness of his
strategy. What concerns us about Lenny's comments posted below is that
they are similar to what occurs when regulators become too close with
the regulated entity. At that point they can become confused between
their relationship with the regulated party and their actual mandate to
protect the public's interest.

Given the passage of dirty transfers last year, the development of wide
spread institutional control strategies for containing and not cleaning
contamination this year, and potential future cuts in cleanup funding in
years to come, Arc believes now is an appropriate time for a fresh look
at the situation. We believe that an entirely different approach to the
problem is needed which is why are organizing the Caucus. It is our
point of view that bringing a critical mass of RAB community members
together in a Caucus to discuss these issues in a depth difficult in the
bulletin board format will enable RAB community members to begin the
process of developing that strategy for themselves.

Saul Bloom
On Behalf of Arc Ecology