Stan raises some valid points, which have been criticized but not really addressed. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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? Michael Queen On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Well, you are probably not going to convince me that the SWR is a very > democratic or representative organization and I'm probably not going to > convince you that it is not. I don't think that I have any more to add to > that discussion other than I would be happy to put my money where my > mouth/keyboard is and assist the SWR with coming up with a means to > institute electronic voting for officers and for special elections in > significant matters such as BLM FOIA's if the leadership or membership so > desires. I would appreciate it if you would make this known at the upcoming > SWR business meeting to see if anyone is interested in my offer. If nothing > else, electronic voting could save SWR members such as Peter Jones > thousands of dollars on travelling to NM to participate in SWR politics. :) > > It is interesting that you mention that Steve Fleming was not appointed > by the SWR chair but by unanimous consensus of the officers. I just > reviewed the SWR constitution and read that the chair can delegate > authority and assign committee chairpersons (Article V. Section 2 A). > Bylaws Section 5 indicates that the Chair can appoint committees and their > chairs. I couldn't find any mention in the SWR constitution that chairs can > be appointed by unanimous consent of officers under than the SWR Chair. > Since I'm obviously missing something, please let me know under what SWR > constitutional authority did the officers appoint a federal liaison > position independent of the chair? > > Unfortunately, I do think that the SWR is now in the same barrel of poop > as the CBD. I think that you have created a concise and entertaining way of > explaining the situation. Please don't blame me and the many other members > who were never consulted on the decision to jump in that barrel. You, your > fellow officers and a few outspoken and influential SWR members have > yourselves to blame for joining the CBD in that stinky mess. You claim that > the CBD operates by threat and open intimidation but that the SWR asks. I > think that filing a FOIA comes under the realm of asking at gunpoint or via > a lawsuit rather than asking with a smile and open heart. > > I appreciate your offer to exit the SWR and start another region, but I > think I'll stick with the SWR as I think that it has a lot of good things > going for it. There are a lot of SWR members engaging in proactive caving > projects and positively contributing to caving and I think that is great. I > also really like the SWR purpose: The specific purpose of the > Southwestern Region shall be a non-profit organization to further the > discovery, exploration, scientific study, and conservation of caves, > especially in New Mexico and the area of Texas west of the southern > projection of the eastern boundary of New Mexico; and to promote safe > techniques of cave exploration. > > I've probably just about run my course on this discussion. It has been > fun. I think that everyone knows what my perspective is on the BLM FOIA and > the lack of a democratic SWR, so I'll sit back for a while and let others > have the virtual floor. > > Happy caving. > > Stan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Evatt <nmca...@centurylink.net> > To: Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> > Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 7:28 pm > Subject: Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake > > > > *From:* Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:17 PM > *To:* s...@caver.net > *Subject:* Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your response. I would have to disagree with your assessment > that the SWR is far more democratic than the USA or the NSS. I can > participate in USA elections and NSS elections without having to drive > across the state. Yes, the NSS officers are elected by the BOG, but I can > vote for the BOG online once again without having to drive across the > state. If we take the example of what happened at the SWR perhaps a > humorous analogy at the USA level would be if President Obama appointed his > spouse Michelle Obama to be the new liason with Russia and then Michelle > declared war on Russia without consulting Congress or without the > President's explicit approval. I hope everyone can see the humor in this > because I really don't think the BLM is the equivalent of Russia and > Michelle Obama is much better looking than Steve Fleming. I know that jokes > don't transmit well via the Internet, but believe me I'm smiling as I write > this and I hope that all of you will find this mildly entertaining as well. > > *Hi Stan,* > > *Voting for NSS BOG is again, not the same thing as voting for its > officers. Please understand that. And you will be voting for voter > representatives you probably have never seen or met, persons whose tiny > paragraph on the ballot site is the only thing you will ever know about > them. The solution to not knowing them? Go to meetings and meet and talk > with them. If you believe blind voting by electronic ballot is superior to > knowledgeable voting, you might consider electing not to vote.* > > *In any government election, you can get up, put on your shoes and > preferably some clothing and go out and vote, at a public polling precinct > location. Or you can request an absentee ballot, fill it out at home and > pay postage (equivalent to a minor poll tax) to mail it back. But you *cannot > *vote electronically, and you *cannot *vote for the Presidential > candidate.* > > *Stephen Fleming was not placed in the liaison position because he was the > spouse of the Regional Chair. He was allowed the position because, purely > and simply, he is by far the best FOIA writer the region has, or has had in > the last 20+ years. He has proven it time and time again.* > > *Fleming was not appointed to the position by the SWR Chair. He was placed > into the position by *unanimous *consent of the SWR officers, to fulfill > the vote (by *unanimous *consent of the membership who attended the last > SWR meeting) to elicit answers concerning the cave closure act, which had > expired without being renewed in Jan. 2013.* > > I attended the SWR Winter Technical in December 2013 so I assume that you > are including me as one of the 70 who demanded answers from the BLM. While > I would like to have answers from the BLM, that doesn't mean I endorsed a > FOIA. > > *What do you endorse, then? Letters and phone calls to BLM officials have > gone unanswered for over three years. If you have a better idea, I’d like > to hear it. So would the region. * > > I don't recall any mention of a FOIA at the SWR Winter Technical in 2013, > so I don't think it is safe to assume that all 70 attendees were in support > of a FOIA that hadn't even been brought up at the time. If I recall > correctly, the most recent SWR Caver stated there were 147 SWR members as > of the 2013 Winter Technical. Since there isn't any way for the leadership > to census all 147 members or have any kind of a vote that involves all > members, I don't think that anyone can state what most of the SWR > membership wants on any issue since no one actually has taken the > measurements necessary to make such a statement. > > *Of course not. If you have an issue to present or a comment to be heard, > and cannot attend a meeting, send it via email to an officer or hand it to > another grotto member who is going. You wouldn’t be the first and I’m > certain you’d not be the last. But those who sit back and say and do > nothing cannot be heard. And polling members in abstencia is helpful for > trend analysis but cannot replace voting. Are you willing to take on the > job of polling those folks after each regional meeting? I’ll mention it at > the next meeting if you are interested.* > > *The FOIA did not become an issue until it was briefly mentioned at the > April meeting. Because BLM had openly refused all previous requests for > information and updates, it became the only avenue left to travel. You > treat it as a condemnation, which it is not. It is a legal request for > information. Only.* > > As a reminder to you and Steve Peerman who have both brought up my > employment with the federal governenment, I'm involving myself in these > discussions as a SWR member on my own time. The BLM FOIA does not involve > the agency that employees me. Yes, I work for the federal government as > does our current Chair who has worked for the USFS and BLM as well as our > last Chair who worked for the USFS and BLM as well as our new Federal > Liason who is retired from the BLM and NPS. Quite a few active SWR members > are federal employees/retirees or federal contractor employees/retirees. > Hopefully I can still be involved in SWR issues as a member on my own time > and represent my own personal concerns without having them be marginalized > because of my employment. > > *And I respond that those officers have sided with the region in the > dialogues and *attempted *dialogues with the federal land management > agencies. And I reiterate that they take the time to go to meetings. And > take the time to stay current with the issues, which are published (meeting > minutes in the SW Cavers) for regional members.* > > *Criticizing the region, its officers and members, and their actions > because you were outvoted and outvoiced is not going to make anything > better. If you dissent, fine, let it be known. If enough dissent, the > voting (and perhaps the voting procedure) will change. Dissent is > encouraged, just a brainstorming sessions are in business. But just because > you disagree is no reason to decry a unanimous vote for answers as a > blunder. If you have polled all of the members who did *not *attend the > last meeting and the *vast *majority did not want the BLM information > elicited, you have cause. If not you were outvoted, and should get on with > being a proactive member and not a outside lobbyist.* > > *And please do not ever place us in the same barrel of poop that is CBD. > They act by threat and open intimidation, we *ask*. Seems BLM has decided > to ignore us both, so far.* > > *And if you don’t like the Southwestern Region or it’s actions, no one is > stopping you from forming your own Region. Many a successful political > party has started just that way. NSS Regions, too, including ARA. I’ll be > the first to wish you luck and Godspeed.* > > *Good caving and even better meeting-going,* > > *Jim* > > > > Once again, I hope you have a great time at the Regional and thanks for > considering my concerns. > > > > Stan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Evatt <nmca...@centurylink.net> > To: Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> > Cc: Peerman Steve <gypca...@comcast.net>; Sorensen Peg < > pegmati...@gmail.com>; Fleming Steven <casto...@gmail.com>; Belski Dave < > bel...@valornet.com>; Harrington Ken <ken_harring...@hotmail.com>; Blake > Jordan <swregiont...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 5:55 am > Subject: Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake > > > > *From:* Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:08 PM > *To:* s...@caver.net > *Subject:* Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake > > Hi Steve and Evelyn, > > Thank you for your responses. You are correct that I don't attend SWR > regional meetings, partially because I work weekends and partially because > I would rather be caving, hiking or backpacking! :) However I think that it > is possible that the consensus of the small number of cavers who attend the > SWR regionals may differ from the consensus of the approximately 150 > members of the SWR. As Evelyn pointed out, the regionals have poor > attendance. The small group that attends regionals may or may not > represent the make-up of the entirety of the SWR. There are many other SWR > cavers like myself who are unable to attend SWR regional meetings, but > still might like to participate in major decisions such as the BLM FOIA and > the creation of a federal liason. If either of you are interested, perhaps > you could bring up the idea at the upcoming regional about having the SWR > enter the digital age and have officer elections and other important events > done electronically so that all members can participate whether they can > attend regionals and winter technicals or not. > > While only a few people have spoken out on the discussion board against > the SWR BLM FOIA, once again, that may not represent the thoughts of the > membership as a whole. Many folks don't actively participate in the > discussion board and some folks might feel intimidated to speak their minds > if they disagree with what may correctly or incorrectly be perceived as a > strongly held majority viewpoint. Others may be smarter than myself and > just not want to enter the fray! :) > > The SWR BLM FOIA is out of the bag and while we disagree about whether it > will accomplish the goals of the SWR or not, I hope that this issue will > prompt the officers of the SWR to create a more democratic and > representative organization in the future. > > Stan, > > Elections are open to any member of the region, and are held at the most > attended meeting each year – the Winter Tech – which usually draws half or > more of the membership, anywhere from 60 to 90. Having that many vote is > far better than the percent who vote in U.S. Presidential elections. And > U.S. citizens do not vote directly for the President. > > And the NSS? Their officers are not elected by the membership at large > either. They are elected by the Board of Governors. That board elects in a > closed session – one that the membership at large cannot attend. > > We are far more democratic than either. > > I have said for generations that if one does not vote, one should not > complain. > > Several years ago I joined an organization here in Albuquerque. They shall > remain nameless. Less than a month after I joined I was approached to > consider running for the board of the org. I responded that I was as a > newbie, I was not comfortable doing that just yet. Later I found out that > the membership had NO say-so in the elections, that the officers (only) > elected the officers AND the board members! Self-perpetuation. Despotism?! > I attended no more meetings and let my membership lapse at the end of that > year. > > Almost always the SWR meetings have employees of federal land management > agencies attend, and not just the Winter Tech. Some are there in official > capacity, some not. So others find time in their Federal schedules and > choose to be heard, not go hiking instead, which they can do 48 weekends a > year without missing a Southwestern Region meeting. It is still the best > open forum for discussion and dissention, and any comments on any issue or > topic are heard. If anyone with an opinion is slighted at the meetings, the > officers want to know so that it does not recur. > > I would also hope that in the future, if some particularly significant and > controversial action is being debated that the SWR officers will use > Article VI Section 2 of the SWR Constitution to declare a special meeting > and have that meeting in a digital fashion so that all members can > participate whether they can physically make it to the meeting or not. > > A good many members over the last 50 years have been silent members who > won’t even use letters or emails to be heard, much less attend meetings; > many if not most of them do not want to become involved in cave politics at > any level. They just want to go caving, or keep up with the caving exploits > of others. > > The WNS/cave closure issue, and the lack of communication from the closure > agencies, particularly the BLM, has been heard and discussed at SWR > meetings for over 3 years. It is not new. At the winter tech last December, > the membership voted for a SWR communiqué to BLM regarding the process for > reopening those caves that were still, and illegally, closed. That issue > was reintroduced at the April meeting, and it was clear that everyone who > who was in attendance wanted answers. The discussion on this topic alone, > at this meeting alone, was an hour long. For three years running we had > received no responses to letters and emails to BLM regarding the issue. > Hence the FOIA, the only avenue open that does legally mandate a response. > > The lack of communication issue within BLM is of no benefit to them or to > the Southwestern Region, but there never would have been a FOIA had BLM > been open and responsive earlier in the (attempted) dialogue. > > The continued cave closure violated law after the expiration of the > closure order. It was also breach of contract with the SWR (the *M*emorandum > *o*f *U*nderstanding with NM BLM). > > Not everyone has been in favor of the FOIA. There will always be > dissenters in any issue or communication. So far I’ve counted not more than > six who disagree with the FOIA, out of forty who demanded answers, by vote, > at the last SWR meeting, and the nearly 70 in attendance at the Winter Tech > Dec. 2013. Of those who disagree, only one is not a federal employee. The > officers of the region have been responsive to the overwhelming majority of > the members’ wishes. > > As Steve Peerman states, the aftermath of the last disagreement with BLM > (fee demo) resulted in a stronger relationship with BLM than ever before. > There were several FOIAs issued in that issue. It became a win-win-win > result for the BLM, the cavers and the cave envoronments. > > I hope that everyone who attends the Black Range SWR will have a great > time and I look forward to seeing Steve on the 17th. Good caving to all. > > Glad to hear from you, Stan. Please come to a meeting every now and then. > > E ^v^ > > Stan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Peerman <gypca...@comcast.net> > To: Stan Allison <stanalli...@netscape.net> > Sent: Sat, May 31, 2014 7:35 am > Subject: Re: [SWR] SWR BLM FOIA a mistake > > Stan, > You are certainly entitled to your opinion and there are aspects of the > way that this has evolved that I wish had happened differently. However, I > would like to respond to some of your concerns. > > On May 30, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Stan Allison wrote: > > Southwestern Cavers, > > I am writing to you as a Southwestern Region member and as a caver who > leads and participates in exploration, survey and cartography projects as > well as scientific projects and recreational caving on BLM managed lands. I > want to express my disappointment in both the Southwestern Region officers > submitting a FOIA request to the BLM and the manner in which it was > submitted without consulting with the SWR membership until after the FOIA > had been submitted. > > > At the last regional meeting, on June 12, there was a general consensus of > those present that "something should be done" in regards to the BLM's > closure of the caves, but the exact nature of what should be done was not > clear. Regional Chair Meg Sorensen was directed by the membership to write > a letter to BLM asking what the management plan was for the caves that were > closed under the Federal Register. However she found herself in a > difficult position, as an employee of the USFS, dealing with cave > management issues herself. She had a conflict of interest, as you yourself > have as well. This letter from her had been requested by the SWR > membership as early as September, 2013, but had not been done (and, to my > knowledge, has still not been done). > In your position at Carlsbad Caverns, I think you may be somewhat shielded > from the general feeling of cavers in the region. (How many regional > meetings have you attended in the last x years? I know, your work schedule > makes it difficult to attend regularly.) For the most part, the active > cavers of the region feel that the BLM has overstepped its authority in > closing the caves, since the expiration of the Federal Register notice. > They don't believe there is sufficient reason for closing the caves, and > that the closure has been done contrary to the BLM's own policies. > However, the expression of these concerns to BLM has fallen on deaf ears, > so the FOIA request is an effort to get their attention. > > I believe that the FOIA request is a bad idea for the following reasons: > > - I don’t think that this FOIA will result in any change of management > or closures of BLM caves. Reviewing the hundreds to thousands of BLM WNS > related emails and correspondence will probably take tens to hundreds of > hours and will probably not reveal anything that we don’t already know. > Even if we do learn something new, I doubt that it will be substantive > enough to require the BLM to make any significant changes in cave > management policies. > > > I certainly hope you are wrong about this. The BLM, as a federal agency, > MUST be responsive to the public. They don't have to agree with our > concerns, but they must listen to them and they must justify their actions. > > > > - Submitting a FOIA request to the BLM is the same tactic that the > Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) used with the BLM. I don’t agree with > the CBD’s tactics in dealing with WNS and federal agencies and in > particular don’t want to see the SWR emulating the CBD’s tactics. I have > heard SWR members and officers complain about the CBD tactics in > dealing with WNS and am surprised that we are now following in their > footsteps. > > > The submission of a FOIA request should not be viewed negatively. I wish > that the BLM had been more open and responsive to this point, but they were > not. (I can't tell you how many e-mails to various folks in BLM about the > closure issue have gone unanswered.) What makes the CBD so repulsive is > their threats of lawsuit. > > > - Responding to this FOIA will take BLM cave managers away from their > duties of managing caves and will mean that our tax dollars spend more time > on responding to a frivolous FOIA request rather than managing caves and > karst. > > I agree, and I wish it had not come to this. But it did. > > > - The SWR has a long history of cooperating and working with the BLM. > While we certainly don’t always agree with everything that the BLM has > done, I think that this FOIA request will damage the SWR BLM relationship > and cause more harm than good. I don’t believe that the FOIA request will > further the goals of the SWR. > > > Back in the '90s, the Fee Demo program came about. Both the BLM and the > USFS made plans to collect fees for caving. The SWR fought both agencies > and convinced both to drop their plans. The meetings were often quite > contentious, but at least there was a dialog. There has not even been a > dialog in the closure issue. At any rate, after the dust settled from the > Fee Demo debacle, the relationship between the SWR and both agencies was > stronger than ever. The HGRP was a direct result of the confrontation > between the SWR and the USFS. > > I am also disappointed with the SWR officers in not consulting with the > membership before creating a new Federal Liaison position and submitting a > FOIA to the BLM. It appears that a false sense of urgency was created in > order to rush the process along without consulting the membership. I would > also hope that a SWR Federal Liaison would work to maintain and build the > SWR/BLM relationship rather than damaging our relationship. I think that > the SWR officers have made a mistake in creating and filling a Federal > liaison position without consulting with the membership and that submitting > a SWR FOIA request to the BLM without consulting with the membership was > also a mistake. I’m hopeful that the SWR’s past record of excellent > cooperation with the BLM in cave management, science, survey, bat > monitoring, exploration, cartography, education, photography, restoration > and recreational caving will help us maintain a good working relationship > with the BLM in the future despite this recent blunder. > > > I disagree that it was a blunder. It was a consequence of actions that > had occurred over a considerable amount of time. It was also a consequence > of SWR Chair Meg Sorensen's conflict of interest. She could not > effectively address this issue. By appointing Stephen Fleming as a Federal > Liaison, the SWR membership could have an effective spokesman. > > > Thank you for considering my concerns and good caving to all of you. > > > We all have our concerns and we should always feel free to share them. > The next SWR meeting is coming up in a few weeks (June 14-15) in the Black > Range. I know you'll be caving in FSC but I hope lots of cavers will > attend the regional and voice their concerns about this issue. > I'm planning on being at the Field House on the 17th when your trip comes > out. Maybe there will be some response from the BLM to discuss at that > point. > > > Stan Allison > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > Steve Peerman > > "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you > didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, Sail away > from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. > Discover." > attributed to Mark Twain, but no record exists of his having written > this. > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
