From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 3 Jul 2003 14:00:57 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | RE: [CPEO-MEF] Credibility Gap and RABs |
The following response was posted by Saul Bloom <saulbloom@mindspring.com> ______________________________________________________________ People's frustrations with RABs are well deserved. It is important to keep in mind that RABs were created because the military was unwilling to support more democratic and publicly accountable community bodies to advise them on the cleanup of their bases. It is also important to note that the military defunded their base closure federal advisory committee, the Defense Environmental Response Task Force, in part because RAB members participating in the National RAB Caucus started attending their meetings and provided testimony that was critical of the handling of military base cleanups. From the outset, the military wanted to the a vehicle for spreading their good news as opposed to providing a critical community oriented look at their environmental programs. Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, where we have a number of good RABs, community participation is not always welcome. Just today, Keith Forman, the Base Environmental Coordinator for the Hunters Point Shipyard and military co-chair of the Shipyard RAB, demonstrated clear hostility toward public involvement by beginning a meeting of the Shipyard's Base Cleanup Team technical committee with the ejection of staff from Arc Ecology - even though we were there at the invitation of the representative of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sensitive issues like significant PCB contamination in a body of water utilized by a poor minority community for fishing and recreation makes the military nervous. While it is nwise, it is not uncommon for a BEC to want to keep the public and public interest groups at an arms length from the internal debate. However the poor judgment, petty behavior, disrespect of state agencies, and blatant hostility to the public of some BECs notwithstanding, RABs can succeed in having meaningful impact on the cleanup process, advancing community concerns over the provincial interests of the military. Indeed, the Hunters Point RAB is a good example of a RAB succeeding despite ongoing adversity. Here are some pointers. Lenny's mentioned them here as have I and others in the past. ONE: The most important thing to keep in mind is that RABs are a tool, not an answer. RABs provide a forum for discussing the issues associated with the CERCLA cleanup of a base. This forum can be a very effective tool for educating the military and environmental regulators about community concerns and interests. The forum can also be an occasional means to obtain an agreement over a course of action BUT there is no guarantee that a good and reasonable argument will prevail because of the numerous and particular interests financial and otherwise of the military and the regulators. TWO: RABs work best when they are supported by active and parallel community education and organizing. RABs that are supported by active local organizations have larger public turn-outs, are more effective at bringing important public issues forward, and are more visible therefore subject to greater political scrutiny. THREE: Another way supportive parallel community organizations can help is through the obtaining of independent environmental technical and legal assistance. Arc Ecology and other organizations have provided environmental technical support to community-based organizations and RABs for almost a decade. This support has frequently aided in the debate over assessment and cleanup strategy during RAB and BCT meetings. Similarly legal support has enabled community based organizations to take actions in support of a RAB's concern or position, lending it more power in the negotiations over remedies. Also the legal support these organizations can acquire often can help out with individual cases of harassment by contractors or military personnel. Harassment techniques such as the following of cars, meetings with individual's employers, and goading at meetings often become less frequent as the sources of those actions become aware of a legal consequence. FOUR: RABs work best when they minimize the amount of time spent on administrative debates. Administrative arguments can be important, however they leave a RAB vulnerable to adjournment and RAB community members are best off when they keep an eye out for when these discussions begin to dominate the meetings. Ill intended BECs have on more than one occasion fomented administrative infighting among RAB members to keep the public off the central point of a RABs concern - cleanup. However the problem doesn't end there, if the distraction continues long enough and becomes disruptive to the forum process a BEC can use it as an excuse for shutting down the RAB itself; this is in part what happened to the RABs at McClellan AFB and Fort Ord. Well organized RABs are able to contain these debates mostly in their committee structure which limits the amount of time taken out of the normal agenda. FIVE: Keeping in touch with other RABs is another important mechanism. Before the Caucus lost its independent funding, it provided a good mechanism for RAB members to share their stories and check the information provided by their bases. The model is still useful. This list serve and others can help individual RAB members sort out the facts regarding RAB guidance and regulatory requirements. The bottom line is that RABs can work, but like building a more responsive government generally, they take a lot of work. Some in the military are banking on the difficulty turning away people, others hope that the public will tough it out because they can then argue more effectively internally. Some folks have argued for doing away with RABs and substituting another process. While I am all in favor of creating alternative processes, I am not currently inclined to do away with RABs as well. It seems to me the more tools we have in the tool box, the more likely it is we will get the job done eventually. Saul Bloom ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Credibility Gap and RABs Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] GAO's compliance findings - some comments | |
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Credibility Gap and RABs Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] GAO's compliance findings - some comments |