[SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary
Michael, Thank you for your comments. From: michael queen Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake Stan raises some valid points, which have been criticized but not really addressed. I’m sorry that you feel that way. They were addressed, by Steve Peerman, myself and others, in several emails. It is not at all clear he was outvoted (since a vote of the SWR membership seems not to have been taken), nor that a consensus was sought or desired. I’m sorry that you feel that way. A unanimous vote did occur at the last regional that the Chair write the BLM asking for status and justifications for the continuing closure of 25 NM caves, an action taken that was illegal, in violation of BLM policy, and a breach of contract with the SWR. Mr. Allison was not there to vote. His comments on bringing issues to the general membership via email are well made and should be discussed openly via internet as well as at the SWR meeting. And they have been. I have, so far, 274 messages pertaining to the subject, all since May 9th. A great many of them, probably a majority, were on the SWR list server. I do not know how many persons are on that list server, but only about 30 of the ~147 regional members have taken the time to comment. That leaves nearly 80% of the region that have yet to be heard from, and need to be heard from. Liaisons are usually chosen such that they can maintain a dialogue between groups and present the views of the group they represent. Synonyms for liaise include cooperate, collaborate, and work together. Steve Fleming was apparently chosen because of his familiarity with writing FOIA requests, which meant that course of action had been chosen before his appointment. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, an FOIA request is not designed to facilitate cooperation. I’m sorry that you feel that way. The history of the SWR regarding federal land agencies proves otherwise, as I and others have previously attested. Anyone is welcome to dissent, but a working knowledge of the processes involved and undertaken, and their historical results, should first be obtained. Assertions that are based on opinion and not fact gain little if anything. This is particularly true when, as Pat Seiser aptly brings up, it is not clear who in SWR can evaluate the technical aspects of the BLM response. I recommend Pat to be that person, since she has brought it up. It will be quite easy, since the reply will contain virtually no technical content. A PhD in Biology, Microbiology, Geology or other related professional field is not required since to my knowledge, only one person BLM-NM has one. The SWR has about a dozen. Let me be absolutely clear: I have been a vocal critic of the CBD since it became apparent that they were patently uninterested in facts, logic, or science. When first I read their draft of the WNS suit I responded positively, as a scientist (with as strong a background in biology as geology), and tried to point out, point by point, weaknesses in their analysis, all of which were ignored and remained uncorrected in their final document. An examination of the degrees held by their staff revealed the likely reason - lots of lawyers and few staff with a good science background (BS's hardly qualify, unless accompanied by decades of experience). From what I can gather, they are more concerned with keeping up their income than with science, and without a sound footing in science, concerns about biological diversity come across as window dressing. And I have been acutely disappointed in the readiness with which BLM, USFS and NPS have seemed to sign on to the CBD platform rather than countering with good science and better data and logic. But it is certainly not clear to me (and it seems some several others) that the FOIA request is the best way to accomplish this. Is there no way that the conniving and misrepresentation of the CBD can't be brought to the attention of the broader community of ecologically concerned individuals, on whose continued support the group depends for credibility? How can these arguments be presented on the Internet, so that when one searches CBD one finds as many criticisms as self-serving claims of helping save the planet? If you have a better way to obtain a BLM response to justify their actions, both with WNS/cave closure and with CBD, please make your knowledge available. Until a better idea is presented (we’ve gone 3+ years without one), please do not criticize the action taken. Letters to BLM have been ignored, verbal requests at BLM meetings have been ignored, BLM/SWR meeting schedules have been ignored, and emails to BLM have been ignored. We have no magic wand to wave to make things happen. It may be that the FOIA is not the best method of eliciting a response from BLM, but until someone can come up with a better plan instead of simply castigating the one taken, it is
Re: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary
On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Evatt wrote: And they have been. I have, so far, 274 messages pertaining to the subject, all since May 9th. A great many of them, probably a majority, were on the SWR list server. I do not know how many persons are on that list server, but only about 30 of the ~147 regional members have taken the time to comment. That leaves nearly 80% of the region that have yet to be heard from, and need to be heard from. Maybe that's because the majority of us have grown weary of all the email traffic on this subject. Diana P.S. Regarding electronic voting: I have been voting via the Internet for years for everything from the officers in various scientific organizations (American Chemical Society, American Society for Microbiology, American Crystallographic Association) to officers for the Texas Speleological Association and yes, even directors of the National Speleological Society. Get with the 21st century, and institute electronic voting for your officers. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana R. Tomchick Professor University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Department of Biophysics 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Rm. ND10.214A Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu 214-645-6383 (phone) 214-645-6353 (fax) UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today. ___ SWR mailing list s...@caver.net http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr ___ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
Re: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary
Jim, I appreciate the frustration involved in sending repeated inquiries and comments to a land management agency and receiving no reply. It has happened to me on several occasions. Most of the time I just figure it's typical bureaucratic snafu and am not quick to rock the boat, except where the safety of caves or endangered critters When that happened with the BLM regional office in Roswell I felt action was demanded and wrote a number of rather pointed letters to the head of the BLM, several senators, the Presidents science adviser, and the President. Most were answered in a polite manner assuring me that nothing was amiss. However, they contributed to several senatorial inquiries being launched, and eventually the Roswell district manager was reassigned, the Dark Canyon drilling proposal was significantly modified and the cave protection zone was designated, and they abandoned plans to have the CRF help look for potential grizzly dens in the Capitans. A vote approving a letter by the Chair inquiring after the status and justifications of cave closures is not, in any way I can tell, the same as approving that someone else write an FOIA request in the name of the SWR. And to call the person who was chosen *a priori* with the intent of writing the FOIA request a *liaison* is at best a distortion of the English language. Finally, while Pat raised the issue of whom might review all the documents, I don't interpret that as volunteering to do it herself (in her spare time?). Nor does it suggest that she has the right background in science to evaluate those documents that involve science (not all Ph.D.s have a strong science background). If there are a bunch of scientists in SWR it is they who should review these, page by page and line by line. I include myself in that group and would be glad to comment as appropriate. I appreciate the significant amount of of work you all do in the interest of caves and the SWR. Please be assured that I do not question the concern and frustration shared by SWR board members and others, just the way in which they chose to pursue these concerns. Michael On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, jen . bigredfo...@hotmail.com wrote: Whoa! I was there and my memory does not match yours. I remember that there were several abstentions on the motion. I also don't remember the motion stating that an illegal action was taken by the BLM. Jennifer -- From: nmca...@centurylink.net To: jmofgu...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:29:05 -0600 CC: s...@caver.net Subject: [SWR] Continuing FOIA commentary *Michael,* *Thank you for your comments.* *From:* michael queen jmofgu...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:05 PM *Subject:* Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake Stan raises some valid points, which have been criticized but not really addressed. *I’m sorry that you feel that way. They were addressed, by Steve Peerman, myself and others, in several emails.* It is not at all clear he was outvoted (since a vote of the SWR membership seems not to have been taken), nor that a consensus was sought or desired. *I’m sorry that you feel that way. A unanimous vote did occur at the last regional that the Chair write the BLM asking for status and justifications for the continuing closure of 25 NM caves, an action taken that was illegal, in violation of BLM policy, and a breach of contract with the SWR. Mr. Allison was not there to vote.* His comments on bringing issues to the general membership via email are well made and should be discussed openly via internet as well as at the SWR meeting. *And they have been. I have, so far, 274 messages pertaining to the subject, all since May 9th. A great many of them, probably a majority, were on the SWR list server. I do not know how many persons are on that list server, but only about 30 of the ~147 regional members have taken the time to comment. That leaves nearly 80% of the region that have yet to be heard from, and need to be heard from.* Liaisons are usually chosen such that they can maintain a dialogue between groups and present the views of the group they represent. Synonyms for liaise include cooperate, collaborate, and work together. Steve Fleming was apparently chosen because of his familiarity with writing FOIA requests, which meant that course of action had been chosen before his appointment. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, an FOIA request is not designed to facilitate cooperation. *I’m sorry that you feel that way. The history of the SWR regarding federal land agencies proves otherwise, as I and others have previously attested. Anyone is welcome to dissent, but a working knowledge of the processes involved and undertaken, and their historical results, should first be obtained. Assertions that are based on opinion and not fact gain little if anything.* This is particularly true when, as Pat Seiser aptly brings up, it is not clear who
