Every meeting from here on out is important. The game keeps changing on us. We cannot let it happen without at least being heard. It is almost over. Join up now before it's too late.
From Zenspearo posted on Spearboard:
Quote:
The thrust of the argument should be a clear expression of displeasure and disgust with the way the process was subverted and the votes were blatantly disregard. Question why the BRTF stated that proposals that do not have cross-interest support will not be considered and now the proposal with the lowest level of cross-interest support, even below 50%, is going forward? Question why the rules were changed to allow this proposal, which was voted out according to the rules set up before the vote was taken, to go forward. Why the secret ballot in this process, which was supposed to be public and transparent? Why it took two days to count the votes--who did they have to consult and answer to? That Ken Wiseman and the MLPA team show a reckless disregard for the RSG work, for the hours and hours of public testimony, and the system is corrupt and is counter to the definition of a fair, open, and public process. Do it in the most professional, most matter-of-fact way you can.
Don't blow your top, don't act unprofessional, don't use curse words. Remember these friends-of-Arnie (aka the Blue Ribbon Task Force) have all the power. They set it up that way. But make sure you aren't letting them get away with it.
A backup argument (which you MUST prepare) should be a refutation of the extreme map (External C) and support of your a more reasonable and fishing-friendly map. If you don't know which, look at External A and External B. Those are our two more friendly maps. Pinpoint an area (say La Jolla or PV or Laguna) and say why that is important to you and why there would be a devastating economic impact to closure. I'm saying you need to prepare this secondary argument in case they pull some BS procedural maneuver (Example: "We will take External C off the table FOR NOW for later consideration so comments regarding the inclusion of External C will not be heard today") and you want to make sure you didn't show up for nothing.
|
Seems like a legit line of questioning to me. I have a couple other concerns to add, but not the time right now. Also having a plan B sounds smart if they cave and make your first speech moot is good.