IS BAYKEEPERS' EXTERNAL PROPOSAL C DEAD?

[zenspearo]

Quite a few of you PM'ed me and thought that Baykeepers' External Proposal C is dead. Gone. No longer included for Round 2 evaluation.

This is the proposal that sticks it to us fishermen. The ones that got voted off by the RSGs.

After all, wasn't that what Ken Wiseman did today?

WRONG! It is very much alive right this minute.

Actually, I thought the same thing when I read Ken Wiseman's memo for the first time.

See the memo here.

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?ID=6...&t=STEAMROLLER

But there is a very subtle switch-a-roo. This is what they hope most will miss.


Pay attention everyone. I missed it the first time too.

Remember the May 27th memo that started this whole mess? Ken Wiseman sent that to the SCRSGs ("Dear SCRSG members,....We have decided that all seven proposals will move forward for analysis and review as part of the Round 2 evaluation process....")

In one stroke, and by virtual fiat, Ken Wiseman decreed that all 7 proposals including the voted out external proposal C would go forward. So he has that authority (or at least in his mind, he does) to directly handle it with the RSGs. While it's true he mentioned Benninghoven's name, he communicated his decision directly to the RSG and that's that (or so he thought). Got that?

June 2nd is today. The new memo is now a "Proposals for Round 2 Evaluation" and it goes from Ken Wiseman and addresses "MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force" to "propose" that only six goes forward. Huh?

Hmmm. Why would he have the power to decree directly to the RSGs that 7 proposals go forward earlier and now he is NOT reversing what he did earlier BY SIMILARLY COMMUNICATING TO THE RSG?

He's only "proposing" it to the BRTF in the current memo, remember?

Here's why. It's the classic authority play. He's not reversing the earlier decision!!! He's tossing it to the BRTF so he can wash his hands, pretending that he did make an effort. If the BRTF refuses to remove External Proposal C, Ken Wiseman can shrug and say "hey, I tried."

That's the subtle sleigh of hand (among many in that memo). There is significance in the fact that the current memo is only a "proposal" and is not addressed to the RSGs, unlike the earlier fiat that is directed toward the RSGs. But it's only one aspect of the gaming.

How do I know that this External C removal is not a done deal? I bet anybody $20 bucks that the BRTF will, with great fanfare, declare that they will take up Ken Wiseman's proposal and "debate" it on June 4th. And they will even let the public have comments too. Whoa..whoa...whoa... Wait a minute. Why should the inclusion of External Proposal "C" be a subject of debate at all? Didn't it get voted off by the RSGs, which by the rules set out by the MLPA Initiative Team, must be gone? I'll leave it for people smarter than me to explain why. Needless to say, this stuff is all engineered in. Gamed in advance.


Let me take a guess why Ken Wiseman would take this longer route to "rescind" the earlier decision to include External C. Lemme see...Debate means the BRTF can go either way, right? Either way the BRTF decide, it gives their buddy Ken Wiseman political cover!!! Pretty slick, huh?

What does this mean for us? We need to show up and tell the BRTF "NO TO EXTERNAL PROPOSAL C" In the name of voting fairness, it needs to be GONE. Not only in name, but its arrays and MPAs, which have been rejected soundly by the RSGs, must be gone. Not snuck back in (did anyone read point #4 of Ken Wiseman's June 2nd memo--that's a sneak-back attempt, boys and girls).

Whoever says this I-team isn't good? It's the best money can buy, guys.
__________________

[Matt]

Just got this email and thought I'd post before I go fish

Who: MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force


What: REVISED draft meeting agenda (attached, changes also highlighted below)
When: June 4, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Where: Sheraton Gateway Los Angeles Hotel
6101 West Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90045
and via simultaneous webcast (on the day of the meeting) at

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp (see attached for details).



Please note the following agenda changes:

* New agenda item: In response to strong interest among stakeholders and the public, a new agenda item (H) has been added focusing on Round 2 evaluations of draft marine protected area proposals. The BRTF will receive and discuss staff recommendations and public comment on this topic.

* Order of agenda items: It is expected that the task force will take up the new agenda item, Agenda Item H (Receive and Discuss Staff Memo Regarding Round 2 Draft Marine Protected Area Proposal Evaluations), first thing in the morning after introductions and that Updates (items A through E) will be received throughout the day.

* General public comment: Public comment on subjects related to the work of the task force, not listed on the agenda, will now be taken at approximately 11:30 a.m.

Parking Validation
Validation will be provided ONLY for Sheraton Hotel valet parking. Adjacent parking lots will no longer accept Sheraton validation

[Holy Mackerel]

just a reminder from Joe's post.

Don't be confused by the fact that there is another public comment at 11:30AM. The critical public comment on External C proposal may be immediately after their discussion of agenda item H, which can come as soon as 9:45AM (if they finish discussion in five minutes--doubtful but possible).

So nothing changes as far as timing. Show up by 9AM at the latest (8AM is better). Get your speaking card in.

***ON THE CARD, INDICATE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION AND OTHERS" Don't say only "General", which is what we suggested earlier, because they may shove you to the split-off general comment period at 11:30AM. ***

[Matt]

thanks for clarifying that Chris!! See you up there tomorrow morning by 8

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by Holy Mackerel

***ON THE CARD, INDICATE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION AND OTHERS" Don't say only "General", which is what we suggested earlier, because they may shove you to the split-off general comment period at 11:30AM. ***

I've been biting my tongue here but I feel it's about time someone said some things that are not being said.

You have to look at this in a strategical light rather then on just it's face value. These people do this stuff for a living. They do not make mistakes and they are not stupid. Everything they do is for strategic gain. They have one goal and that is to get their way, and they will use everything at their disposal to do so. It's politics that's how it works.

First off... what is C and why is it in there to begin with.

Well some might say it's the end of the world anti fishing proposal that will shut down fishing for ever. It sure looks that is what it is.... right.

Well they truth is that is not what it really is. C is a political maneuver to sway the debate where they want it to be.

The BRTF (politicians) already knows pretty much what they want to put in place but since they have through the process with the RSG (public) their goal is to get the RSG to submit a proposal that already looks like what they already want.

If they have to rewrite the proposal that the RSG puts in front of them it's their political necks on the line. For them it's all much easier if the RSG just gives them something that looks just like what they already want.

Proposal C is not going to be passed on by the RSG it does not have the votes. It's not in there as a viable proposal. C is in there and they want to keep it in there as a bargaining chip to sway the debate just enough to the environmental side to get the RSG to give BRTF the exact proposal they want. It's there purely as a counter balance to the support on the fishing side.

When Wiseman told the RSG members to vote he never had the intention of removing C he just wanted the fishing interests to make some compromises and consolidate their plans. Less Plans or compromises on the fishing side means more weight on the envrio side which sways the end result toward the enviros.. Get it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but technically according to process rules the only group that can remove the proposals unless they are withdrawn voluntarily is the BRTF(politician's) and they are not going to hand over that right to the RSG (public). The RSG is just an advisory board and has no real power, ultimately whatever they say can be trumped by the BRTF, and the BRTF are not going to give up their power to the RSG.

Recently the fishing side has made some great progress the vote clearly shows the more fishing friendly proposals have strong support in the RSG.

Now instead of building on those strengths and those victories they have the fishing community talking about C. Even though C is a lame duck proposal that will never go forward even if it remains in the process.

I mean honestly do you guys think for one minute they did not see this coming. Wiseman and others knew that fisherman would raise hell about pushing C through they planned on it. They knew also that all they have to do to kill the debate on C is to say that removal of proposals is and always will the BRTF's decision.

Tomorrow if you guys go in there only ready to debate C, the days going to be wasted for the fishing side.

Trust me the whole "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION"' debate is going to end with them simply saying that it's the BRTF's not the RSG's decision and then they are going to cut off all debate on that subject. What are you going to do then?

Especially if everyone has only signed up to comment on ITEM H

I would strongly suggest that you have people sign up for Both the general and Item H comment period, and if each individual can sign up for both they should do so. You need to be ready to discuss more then C at this meeting or we are going to loose some momentum.

You don't win by attacking weaknesses but by eliminating your opponents strengths. I'd say that is exactly what this is all really about. Rather then discussing our strengths they have totally swung the debate to one issue, a technicality, that they created, and to which they already have response prepared.

Even if they get rid of C (I doubt they will) it does not matter that much as C is never going anywhere anyway as the RSG has no intention of passing it on as the final proposal to the BRTF.

It's all a huge strawman, and they are laughing while we try to beat the sh!t out of it while ignoring the larger issues and our real strengths.

They don't get their way through fair debate, they get it by limiting debate, or more precisely the public's input, and they have us limiting our own debate by focusing on a single issue. That's the real point of what they are trying to do here.

Just my opinion, Jim

[zenspearo]

I haven't read all of Jim Day's post but one thing caught my eye.

and it's a common ground for agreement.

Please sign up for BOTH the agenda item H and the general speaking at 11:30AM.

That means you will fill out TWO cards.

Hey, you are already there anyway, what's the problem?

That way, each of us takes two bites of the apple.

Lots to talk about--trust me.

Breaking news:

At the end of every speech, whether during agenda item H or general item, EVERYONE please address the point that there is, in addition to a science data gap, a socio-economic data gap, a financial gap, there is now a credibility gap. The science data gap and the socio-economic data gap comes from the inadequate Ecotrust data. The finance gap comes from the fact that the state is flat broke, and we see the cost creeping up at every turn --and no way to pay for closures and DFG is broke. The credibility gap comes from the constantly shifting rules, the demoralized RSGs and incidents like not providing science data material to the RSG until the night before and expecting them to act on it the next day on voluminous data they don't have to read.

This process needs to be paused for these gaps to be fixed.


This point needs to be repeated 100 times. Trust me, it's a critical push we are giving on the point. Take ten seconds everyone and say this. 100 times. 200 times.

[zenspearo]

But I disagree, and some of the smartest guys on the fishing sides disagree, that External C can be ignored.

We need to apply maximum pressure to eliminate C, because it is a drag on consumptives.

If it is evaluated in Round 2, it will get huge science scores (bigger and ridiculous closures = higher scores. No brainer there) and look like the fair hair child of all the proposals, and that put HUGE pressure on the consumptive RSGs to give up more to keep up. Even though External C is unrealistic, it is a foot at the neck of our RSG reps.

WE NEED TO RELIEVE THAT PRESSURE OR OUR RSG REPS WILL BE FORCED TO GIVE UP MORE AND MORE.

That's our job.

[zenspearo]

The enviro RSGs are pushing hard to keep External C in place. They WANT this. We NEED to get rid of it.

**********************************

Fellow Stakeholders and members of the BRTF:

This new recommendation badly misses the mark. Because the Blue Ribbon Task Force clearly asked the RSG to emphasize SAT guidance (at preferred level no less), come off positions, reduce the number and duplication in arrays, and pursue cross-interest support while reducing the number of arrays on the table, I would hope and expect them to reject this recommendation because it completely fails to preserve these critical process fundamentals. I’ll only address recommendation #1 because the other three either are incompletely described or would require far greater process tweaks than either the decision made last Wednesday or the unwise concept of reversing that.

Before the RSG work sessions on May 20-21, the process leadership gave us our charge. Speaking favorably about the effort to unify sport and commercial fishing interests by FIC/FIN, Chairman Benninghoven said “now, cross that line in the sand.” Scott McCreary presented the BRTF guidance, saying “the BRTF is willing and able to make a recommendation,” and indicated the goal was “to advance the broadest range possible.” The phrase “if you don’t, the BRTF will” was used. Director Wiseman answered questions about duplication saying “I’m concerned about duplication….similar proposals don’t have the same weight.” The term “gaming” was used.

The clear implication was that there are overarching goals and guidance here that are not to be ignored. Our RSG is tasked to meet these goals in ways that we deem best based on our local and personal knowledge. But these goals were clearly presented as essentials. These goals are the purview of the BRTF, and we were given every expectation that they would be enforced. “Promise” was the term used in Mr. Wiseman’s memo last Wednesday in regards to duplicative proposals. I believe that this entire vote on arrays should have been avoided by merging one or more duplicative arrays as we were told would be the case. We can still do that of course, and move on.

In making the announcement last Wednesday evening that all seven proposals would move forward and receive evaluation, the MLPA leadership acted to say essentially “Wait. The guidance was not met. Round 2 produced the duplication we warned against. It did not advance a range of options as requested given the unnecessary elimination vote. It did not advance from the vote an array that meaningfully addressed the Science Advisory Panel Guidance. We must restore balance.” It was not an easy decision nor a very pretty one. But it was well advertised and clearly expected by those that read the guidance and heard the charge. It reflected the obligation of the process to advance arrays representing the range of ideas among the stakeholders. It acted to preserve a working platform for cross-interest work by all stakeholders, not just those given a majority standing in the RSG who do not enjoy this same advantage in the outside world.

I submitted a letter yesterday (pasted below) describing the process needs that last Wednesday’s memo preserved. I regret that now this action is being reconsidered by some, and ask that the BRTF does not reconsider it. To support the recommendation received today to about-face on Wednesday’s decision, the BRTF would leave the process in the following condition:

No array that meets the Science Guidelines or the BRTF guidance to emphasize their preferred levels.
No evaluation of Round 2 iteration SAT compliant arrays to inform and define tradeoffs and options for meeting these goals at levels of impact that are acceptable.
Reinforcement of artificially created “majority rule” straw vote process that removes valuable ideas from consideration
A dramatically lopsided round 2 outcome that duplicates single-interest values in four of seven arrays
Damaged process leadership credibility that ground rules, guidance and MLPA Act goals will not be enforced or retained if unpopular

Previous successful MLPA study regions were based on clear statements (platforms) for stating core values and interests of each “side.” The Staff acted in a previous region to protect fishing interests as represented in an external and internal array from the results of a straw vote that went the other way. The pillars of successful MLPA implementation in prior study regions were restored and advanced by staff last Wednesday as has been done in the past. Now some stakeholders – who already have a decisive numeric advantage as well as a dominant position in the process reflected in four of seven arrays – insist that the sole remaining platform needed to advance the values of scientific guidance and conservation be eliminated on threat of boycott. How many players threaten to fold winning hands?

I would hope the BRTF continue to act as our “referee” and preserve the “foul” called on depriving one constituent part of our stakeholder group the tools it need to work towards reasonable compromise.

Thank you.

Greg Helms

Stakeholder, South Coast Region MLPA

[zenspearo]

More enviro RSG pushing to keep External C. They are not taking this for granted, neither should we.

***************************

Fellow stakeholders and BRTF members: (From Garth Murphy)

The new I-team recommendation on voting results for Arrays to move forward for evaluation should be rejected because the voting process was poorly designed by staff and is fatally flawed.

The use of elimination voting instead of positive voting, demanding that each voter vote 4 times instead of just once, mostly for arrays they did not support, resulted in the disenfranchisement of 29 of the RSG members who voted for External C. Though not quite half of the 64 member RSG group, this is a significant number to disenfranchise.

If a single positive vote per RSG member system had been applied to the five contesting arrays, and C had received 29 of the 64 votes it would have been at or near the top of the heap. If C had recieved just 13 votes it still would have made the cut. (the cutoff threshold number is 13 votes, 64 divided by 5.)
At 29 out of 256 votes, it appeared to trail in at last place, a flawed result of a flawed 4 votes per person system that heavily favors the majority.
*This flawed method of elimination voting is never used in elections. This was not a straw vote, ballots were handed out and filled in, with 4 choices demanded for count qualification.

Because so many of the stakeholders in Lapis groups were feeling disenfranchised by the end of the gem groups process leading up to the vote, 29 votes for C is a real possibility, but even if some of the 29 RSG members who voted for External C had voted for Lapis 1, say 12, none would have voted for Lapis 2, A or B and the other 35 votes would have been divided among those other three similar minimal fishery-industry promoted arrays. If C opposition was organized and gave 12 votes to two arrays and 11 to one, C still would have been one of the top four, and maybe at the top with 14 or 15 votes, depending on how the voting shuffled out.

What is certain is that C would never have been eliminated in a positive, one vote per member balllot.
Please do the math with various permutations. The results are the same. A, B, or Lapis 2, possibly even Lapis 1 would have been eliminated.

I believe that all 7 arrays should move forward to evaluation, and that first item of agenda at the next meeting of the RSG, after digesting the evaluations, should be a single vote per member, positive ballot for the array you want to use as a basis for the 3rd round. Then we will get a real idea of what the RSG members need and want to continue with. And no-one will be further disenfranchised by a single flawed vote.

I-team, am sorry I took so long to figure this out. I had always felt used by the vote, in that I was forced to vote for two or three arrays that were unacceptable to me, instead of the one I really identified with. This was the clue I chewed yesterday and on for a long night.

This is a critical decision for the BRTF and RSG moving forward. Please make the fair decision.

Garth Murphy, RSG member

**********************************

Hello BRTF, I-Team, and fellow RSG members, (From Jenn Feinberg)

After receiving Ken's memo today, I feel compelled to send this email and communicate my disappointment and frustration with the direction this process has taken.

On May 19th, at the beginning of Round 2, I explicitly and formally voiced a concern in plenary about the “worst-case scenario” in which none of the work groups come to common ground and develop one map. This situation would have resulted in six internal maps and three external maps. Knowing that these nine maps would then need to be winnowed to six through an elimination vote and understanding that five of these maps would likely be variations of FIC/FIN, I had serious concerns that there was no incentive for certain interest groups to compromise. Playing this scenario out, given the makeup of interests on the RSG, if each RSG member received six votes, five similar fishing maps and one map that reflected other interests on the RSG would have moved forward in Round 3.

We were all assured by Ken that maps that were very similar would NOT be forwarded to Round 3 and that any attempts to "game the system" would be thwarted. It was on this assurance that I headed into to Round 2, rolled up my sleeves, and got to the business of trying to meet the guidance provided to us by the BRTF: Meet the science guidelines. Meet DFG feasibility. Develop arrays with cross-interest support.

The results of Round 2 and the vote that followed left me dumbfounded. Not only were 2 maps, Lapis 2 and External A, essentially the same, but External B and Opal also included most of the same geographies as Lapis 2 and External A.

These replicate maps do not meet the science guidelines, some do not meet DFG feasibility, and none were developed with cross-interest support (coordination amongst recreational and commercial fishermen does not constitute cross-interest as the BRTF intended and many interests in Opal formally object that their map does not reflect their interests). Yet because the BRTF provided guidance that Round 2 should result in a total of six maps and because the merger of similar maps was not required, the RSG was required to take a vote that resulted in External Proposal C being eliminated. In addition to this vote being incredibly unfair given the imbalance in the makeup of the RSG, this vote was completely, 100% unnecessary. Had the BRTF guidance to not allow similar proposals to move forward been implemented, we would not be in our current situation.

The recommendation in Ken's memo to delete External Proposal C will force RSG members in Round 3 to compromise on a range of maps, none of which meet the science guidelines.

External Proposal C is the only map that comes close to meeting the SAT guidelines. It will provide important evaluative information from the SAT and serves as one of two "bookends" from which RSG members can choose ideas in our attempt to develop a compromised array. With External Proposal C eliminated, we no longer have a valuable range of alternatives from which to build our arrays. What we are left with is 4 maps that are basically equivalent to each other and two maps that have some cross-interest support but still need a lot of work.

After Round 1, the BRTF provided the following statement: "The BRTF recognizes that some Round 1 draft arrays developed by the SCRSG have been influenced by positional bargaining and, as a result, many MPA ideas have been replicated in multiple draft arrays and proposals: this replication results in multiple, similar proposals that do not reflect cross-interest support. Proposals that do not reflect cross-interest support will carry less weight in the MLPA Initiative process and may not carry forward to the final round of MPA proposal development."

This positional bargaining has continued in Round 2 and the results of this failure to negotiate can be seen in the outcome we have all been dealing with over the last week. If there is no incentive to come to the table, I believe many RSG members will simply not come to the table. The reason we were able to make as much progress as we did in Topaz was because we had the benefit of several fishermen who were working and negotiating in good faith. I am thankful for their genuine efforts and hope that there will be a mechanism for those of us who would like to continue working to be able to do so in a safe, fair, and balanced atmosphere.

While the results of Round 2 meet the BRTF guidance to "get to six maps," we failed to forward a range of arrays that meet the science guidelines and have cross-interest support. I fear that straw voting, failure to negotiate in good faith, and lack of enforcement of BRTF guidance will continue to prevent us from completing the job that we have all been selected to do. We need External C to move forward for evaluation in order to inform the process and provide us with the flexibility we need to find compromise.

I am respectfully requesting that the BRTF does not follow the recommendations in Ken’s memo, that they retain External Proposal C for evaluation in Round 3, and that they reduce the number of maps moving forward through merging those arrays that are blatantly similar, offer no new insight, and are essentially gaming the system.


I am disenchanted.

Jenn



--
Jenn Feinberg

[zenspearo]

I'm posting the letters to show the push on the other side, and to give you guys thoughts on what the other side is thinking so as to focus your response.

The maps look similar because SoCal is 80% sand and most of the maps, by science guideline requirements, must cluster around the 20%. There are only so many ways to draw closures around Laguna. There are only so many ways to draw closures around Point Loma. etc..

Bring this up people. Let's put some fire on this.

[Saba Slayer]

WOW!
Great info Joe.
Great insight into the "other side".
Thanks for all the hard work!
See you tomorrow!
Jim / Saba Slayer

[Tman]

Now this is my interpretation, hope I'm not too far off base.

Essentially what they are saying is, we never thought C would end up deleted and out of the picture, therefore the voting system was flawed.

Never mind the skewed data, inconclusive findings, all done in haste to expedite the process and never expecting the end result. And if it doesn't come out the way it was planned, change the rules.

Ya, that's fair...

Instead, let's use double speak and redundancy to sound more officialese.

So Director Wiseman, should C end up deleted again, would we have another voting flaw, or have you and your cohorts already planned another reason for retaining it?

I know, we are a thorn in your side, but remember, the public opinion in this whole process should be taken into consideration.

When I read these letters, one voice keeps popping up in my head...the lady who said, "We love fishing and we love fishermen, but we want our grandchildren to be able to fish."

Smoke and mirrors indeed...