Testimony by Ken Sethney on behalf of Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners
at the COBI City Council Land Use Committee 10/20/09
re: Resolution 2009-27 making ETAC a permanent volunteer committee
Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners is happy that the Council is working to make the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) permanent. We support the notion that there will be a core committee and a pool of experts available for consultation. That said, we have some suggestions after reading proposed resolution #2009-27 (full text below).
Section 1 seems very comprehensive in its scope. However, while item E references the Growth Management Act, there is no reference to the Shoreline Management Act. Since the legislature, the governor and the courts have made it clear that local Shoreline Master Plans are be governed by the SMA and not the GMA, it may be prudent to reference the appropriate language here to avoid future complications.
Section 2 lays out the qualifications and terms of those who will serve on the committee and in the consulting pool. WAC 365-195-905(4) sets forth the appropriate scientific expertise. However, we are concerned about balance on the committee and in the pool of experts.
Should local engineering firms be included? If they do business with the City, there is a potential conflict of interest. They are bound by professional ethics, but they are in a very difficult position.
Should staff members with BAs in non-scientific fields be allowed to review the work of PhD’s with decades of experience in relevant fields of study? No.
Should members of political action groups with scientific experience and credentials be included? This may be difficult to avoid, since there is no compensation and those willing to serve will undoubtedly have reasons for doing so. We would like to see the Council require balance in the ETAC.
Since ETAC is a “technical” advisory committee, we would recommend that a previously missing area of technical expertise be required by the Council — law. Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners would like to see our city avoid expensive legal conflicts. We recommend that the Council require one or more experienced land use attorneys on the consulting group.
We realize that there is no funding to compensate ETAC members, and that it may not be possible to find an attorney willing to participate without compensation. Therefore, we would be willing to fund an honorarium and we would invite our friends at BAPS or People for Puget Sound to match us. If we both retain an attorney, he or she will be bound by ethical standards to represent us equally and render a balanced opinion.
Alternatively, the City might look for a retired attorney or judge with relevant land use experience willing to provide legal analysis before an SMP update is proposed or passed.
Our organization would welcome suggestions by all interested citizens to find the best possible members for the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee.
========
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-27 (proposed)
A RESOLUTION of the City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, relating to the reauthorization of a technical advisory committee on environmental issues, entitled the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to manage and protect our natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor appointed the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) as a 90-day committee on May 9, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2001, the City Council authorized the establishment of the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee as a two-year committee with extensions of six months by the Mayor as necessary; and
WHEREAS, due to a continuing need for the service of the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee, the Mayor extended the term of said committee; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2005-03, approved by the City Council on December 14, 2005, identified the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee as a reviewing body for habitat management plans in Section 16.20.060 of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee provides a highly valuable resource to the City and is necessary for fulfilling the best available science requirements (WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925) of the procedural criteria of the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee a permanent committee with standardized terms; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Committee establishment and authority.
An Environmental Technical Advisory Committee is established for the following purposes:
A. Serve as a technical advisory committee to the City Council, City Manager and Planning Department staff on environmental management issues; and
B. Provide technical recommendations on habitat management plans pursuant to Section 16.20.060 of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code; and
C. Provide technical recommendations on environmental management standards for the City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Management Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance; and
D. Provide technical environmental review of policies and regulations proposed for the City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Management Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance; and
E. Conduct all items above consistent with the best available science sections (WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925) of the procedural criteria of the Growth Management Act.
Section 2. Committee membership and terms.
The Environmental Technical Advisory Committee shall consist of local experts who are qualified as an expert pursuant to WAC 365-195-905(4), as amended, and qualified to fulfill the purposes of Section 1. The committee shall consist of seven to nine core members with expertise in wildlife management, fisheries management, geology, wetlands management and/or hydrology. The committee members shall be appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by the City Council, and shall serve without compensation. The core committee members shall serve for a term of three years from the date of their appointment. The current approved members shall be assigned staggered terms of one year, two years and three years with the longest serving members being assigned the shortest terms. There shall be no limitation on members being reappointed for additional terms.
The Committee shall develop a pool of qualified experts in the various aspects of environmental science and shall consult with these experts on issues related to their field of expertise. This pool of experts is to be used for consultation only and will not be compensated or considered a voting member of the Committee.
I applaud the positive, progressive and proactive suggestion and have only one point to offer.
I strongly disagree with the notion that anyone (including so-called experts) should have unquestioned influence on any portion of the process of matters concerning public interest.
“Should staff members with BAs in non-scientific fields be allowed to review the work of PhD’s with decades of experience in relevant fields of study? No.”
Not only should anyone “be allowed” but everyone should be encouraged to “review” (and, respectfully, to comment on) the work of anyone else, regardless of their respective and relative education and experience.
I have worked side by side with, and directly supervised, individuals with PhDs and numerous other credentials more impressive than my own and I can think of no instance where their recommendations were not challenged, tempered and improved by an open dialogue with others including but not limited to their peers.
Our city, state and federal governments and many exhuberant citizen activists have demonstrated that they too often will not receive and consider contrary or, in their immediate naive or preoccupied opinions, extraneous inputs regarding developing and enacting public policies.
We should be particularly attentive to such pitfalls at this level of governance which impacts us directly and which we can influence most in our small numbers.
I encourage you to reconsider this one aspect of your input in our collective behalf.
j nute —
Point well taken. As long as open dialog takes place, I would agree that “expert” recommendations can be tempered and improved. The difficulty comes when moderators of the discussion refuse to consider any input that doesn’t conform to a set of preconceived notions.
For the past decade, Bainbridge Island has allowed, even expected, a junior planner with no scientific credentials to moderate the technical discussion. At one point, the technical advisory committee included a variety of perspectives, but that changed when it became clear to the participants that only one point-of-view was being considered.
There is a school of thought that action must be taken as a precaution because harm might be caused by certain actions. The problem with that idea is that the precautions might turn out to cause more harm than doing nothing.
I would prefer to see the scientific discussion moderated by one or more people with substantial scientific credentials. They would review the literature and receive input from a variety of experts before reporting their findings to the City. Land use regulations should be based on fact, not conjecture.
Ken Sethney, Chair
Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners