Re: Vive La Difference

["Theodore J. Henry" <thenry@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>]

Well I must say I think that all who read this listserver have a pretty
clear understanding of the differences between the two groups, and I
certainly think that it is quite important that citizens know of both
groups and approaches. There are differences at work in every arena
not just military clean-up issues. Each individual must meet,
work with, and assess active people whether it be military personnel,
regulators or activists and determine which individuals best suit their
needs and/or are worth working with. I have met military folks, regulators
politicians and citizens who are narrow minded, egocentric, not
trustworthy or just plain nuts. I also have met individuals who have
integrity, work hard, and are willing to listen and compromise from each
of the four groups listed in the previous sentence. Just like other
aspects of existence, we choose who we associate with based on our
experiences, and citizens trying to bring about change for their
communities will do so with other individuals and ideas discussed on
this list server.

I have met Lenny and Aimee many times and I am familiar with their efforts
and thought processes. I believe they are quality people. I have met
individuals that are less warm on some of their beliefs, but this
is to be expected - there are a lot of people in the world. Certainly,
they have not agreed with all my ideas or suggestions but they have always
tried to be supportive however they could. Everyone has different levels
of trust with DoD, but it has never been my experience that Career/Pro is
in DoD's pocket in any way. 

 I have not met those within Arc Ecology and I certainly hope to do so in
the upcoming year. I am quite confident in my ability to assess the
integrity and intentions of individuals I meet and work with, and I hope
that it is possible to work with Arc Ecology. I certainly agree with
various facts and observations presented by Saul, such as the fact that
the funds requested by DoD for clean-up are not directed by actual need.
The military goal of addressing only 50% of the high priority sites by
2002 is a policy decision (likely to be strictly financially based) made
without much outside input. Many of Arc's observations ring true to things
I have seen, and these things put communities at a terrible disadvantage. 

At the same time, I will be frank and state that I have been contacted by
several individuals from the community side (not working for or with
Career/Pro) who spoke very poorly of Arc Ecology. Additionally, 
I have some concerns about this perception that Arc does not
have the ability to work with military and regulatory parties;
I don't think plain force will put communities in a better
position. Regardless of these few things, I still hope to work with Saul
and his people on this Caucus movement and I hope that Career/Pro and all
interested citizens will be actively involved. And in any future contacts
I have with other citizens, I certainly would suggest that they
participate in the Caucus as their time allows, this organizing work is
important. It is on the basis that helping the RABs is the most important
thing (instead of authorship or control) that I agreed to work on the
National Association of RABs ideas I have through Arc's Caucus approach.

 In the end, I think the volunteer community members in the front-line
trenches across this country need such team work. As Saul pointed out in
his letter, many citizens are not experiencing, shall we say, a team work
atmosphere in their RAB settings and this needs to change. Communities
must have input. It was such an observation which led me to my idea of an
assistance board for RABs to help the community members get some chronic
problems addressed and off their overflowing plate. There is room and a
need for varying approaches, yet they can still be woven together to bring
about beneficial change and reach larger goals.

 It should also be pointed out that division within these efforts to
organize only benefits DoD. From my experience with certain APG personnel 
who will tell one group one thing and another group another, it is clear
that DoD does not need help in the divide and conquer approach which I
have seen. 

Lastly, it would be logical for someone to question the directives guiding
any individual, whether he or she is from a University, an NGO,
Contracting firm, etc. So, I should be clear about my work and the Program
in Toxicology. I should openly state my situation here. I am paid
part-time at Maryland for the work I do at APG, as well as a small project
coming up regarding a California Base. I do not get paid for time I spend
on issues outside these projects (such as this time on this organizing
issue, and other military and non military projects I work on). My
efforts on behalf of citizens (both military and non-military related) I
have come to know are guided by the work I believe needs to be done, not
on whether I am or am not getting paid for all the work I do. 

As far as the issue of appearing unbiased or a need to be neutral, well I
do believe balance is important. However, I admit I am biased at times - I
often feel citizens are getting raw deals from certain military folks who
still have the old mentality that "we are DoD, we can do what we want so
go back to your homes and leave us be". I also think that local, 
state and federal regulators too often do not stand up to protect the
citizen's right to participate as tax payers and potentially affected
individuals, usually because of economic and political factors. However, I try
to ground myself by (1) always double checking to make sure I understand
the citizen's concerns, (2) using science to the best of my ability to
guide my efforts, and (3) demanding clearly presented logic by the
military or regulators in issues or problems I am assessing. (I must say
it still surprises me how often the Army will present a decision or
conclusion and leave science and logic out of the discussion). In the
end, I feel I am keeping to these truths as long as I can go to
the citizens groups, regulators and APG leaders and ask each group for a
letter of recommendation for my next job, and I feel I can do this. In my
mind, that says a great deal about my efforts.

I should also make it clear that the positions I present are not guided by
the institution I work for. I do not worry about what the
University of Maryland may think because no one except for the
Environmental Law Clinic and my associate, Dr. Katherine Squibb, has
any clue what I do here. In this world, it is all based on research
dollars, for the most part. Out there community participation and
military clean-up is important, in the walls of a University it is
very small. If someone ever came to me from the University and said
"we are concerned about your documents" I would fall over laughing, and
say "and you are who?" Then I would show him or her the binders of
workproducts I have produced to help local citizens fight the good fight.

Have a good weekend.

Sincerely

Ted Henry

P.S. I did not intend to spend my morning on e-mail, but I thought it was
best to get this out there so people are not left wondering where I am
coming from. If anyone else has something to offer on this issue of human
dynamics and philosophical approaches, then hit the keyboards and get it
out here so there are no bags to carry or misunderstandings. Then, lets kick 
this up to the next level and accept our differences and do something
positive for frustrated citizens since DoD or the regulators are not going
to carry the community along. Everyone is overworked and has their own
agendas and directives, so if citizens want to "get it done", the
community contingency has no one to turn to but ourselves. I think all
will agree on that. Change does not come easily.