25 April 2014

Forest plan collaborative process begins to unravel

The Flathead National Forest’s collaborative forest plan revision process unraveled a bit this week when two environmental groups, and an independent wildlife consultant, formally notified FNF Supervisor Chip Weber that they were, to varying degrees, decreasing their involvement in the Meridian Institute facilitated process.

Signatories to the letter were Keith Hammer of the Swan View Coalition, Arlene Montgomery of Friends of the Wild Swan, and independent wildlife consultant Brian Peck. All have decades of experience in public lands issues. Hammer, especially, is known for his meticulous attention to detail.

Here are excepts from the letter, followed by my thoughts on the situation:

Your refusal to issue a timely Assessment of the Management Situation and, now that it has finally been issued, your refusal to take a timeout from meetings while the public reviews this 718-page document.
Issuance of a $285,000 contract to Meridian Institute that was modified to have Meridian determine areas of common ground at the meetings rather than have participants “work as a group to determine areas of common ground.”
Meridian’s refusal to keep accurate records of who says what in the meetings, in spite of numerous requests to do so and substantial disagreements over conclusions Meridian is drawing from the meetings.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

These circumstances have resulted in a process that is ill-informed, poorly documented and is creating conflict and resentment rather than shared understanding and good will among the participants. Frankly, it defies logic that the American taxpayer is expected to shell out well over a quarter million dollars for a series of meetings to be left with no record of who said what at those meetings so they can draw their own conclusions or examine the basis for what Meridian Institute and the Forest Service conclude.

We will remain involved in this process in written form so that our contributions cannot be omitted nor misconstrued by Meridian or the Forest Service, but our presence at the meetings will be diminished

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

We are aware that the Forest Service has contracted with Meridian Institute, via IECR, in order to conduct this “collaboration” without having to convene a formal Federal Advisory Committee and publish its meeting notices and detailed minutes in the Federal Register. Delegating to contractor Meridian Institute the Forest Service’s FACAforbidden task of asking for a group opinion however, does not lessen the importance of keeping accurate records necessary to substantiate conclusions drawn from the meetings and process. (See Document 7, USDA Forest Service Collaborative Activities: Compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act guidance).

In spite of numerous requests and basic common sense, you have failed to require that Meridian keep full and accurate records. This has robbed the process of the opportunity to build trust and faith and has instead resulted in distrust and a process lacking integrity.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

We are deeply saddened that this opportunity for meaningful and informed public involvement has thus far been squandered at great expense to the American taxpayer.

I think this was inevitable given the group management techniques the Forest Service hired Meridian to employ. The collaborators are meeting in small groups, and there is neither a verbatim transcript of the group sessions nor notes that link names and comment. Instead, generic group reports are aggregated into generic meeting reports. The practice disassociates, and is meant to disassociate, individuals and organizations from their ideas and words. It blurs detail, and is meant to blur detail. These tactics frustrate, and are meant to frustrate, a third party review of how decisions were made. And I believe they deprive, and are meant to deprive, journalists of juicy quotes. Meridian’s techniques are meant to generate an agreement that obviates litigation, but I think they make litigation more likely.

I’m beginning to wonder whether this situation can be resolved without replacing Meridian. A good deal of correspondence from all sides has crossed my desk. From it, Meridian’s facilitators/mediators emerge as proud, stubborn, and utterly confident their methods are beyond reproach. Unfortunately, another facilitation/mediation crew might do an even worse job of it. A better approach might be recording the sessions with both court reporters and high definition video.