Should SEWRPC Task Force Complete A Project By Email?
About two weeks ago I posted this item - - wherein an attorney for the ACLU urged SEWRPC not to permit its Environmental Justice Task Force to finish a high-profile report by email.
SEWRPC responded that it saw no Open Meeting problem with the email procedure, and I have tried since last weekend without success to get several SEWRPC officials to offer further clarifications.
(I will post an example below, with some third-party contact information deleted, fyi).
SEWRPC, to its credit, did agree to extend until this afternoon from an earlier deadline the opportunity to email in additional comments on the report.
Offering comments is one thing: approving the content of a report that will become a chapter in SEWRPC's regional water supply study is another.
So with the work admittedly not yet completed, why not allow the EJTF to finish its work at an open meeting - - with an agenda and public notice as it has done throughout - - where the public could hear the discussion (SEWRPC does not record these meetings with audio or video equipment, by the way), participate in the discussion as has been the task force's continual procedure, and then conclude this project with a formal vote?
If not, I think important questions will remain unanswered and the report, through a dubious approval procedure, will fail to have the impact intended.
Remember that the EJTF was created after a federal performance review found the agency lacking in outreach to minority and low-income communities.
Holding a final discussion among the task force members by email at the very task force created to meet the federal reviewers' concerns is about as contradictory and dismissive as you could get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag this message
Fw: RE: SEI Summary/Final Draft
Thursday, August 5, 2010 3:50 PM
From:
"James Rowen"
To:
"Gary K. Korb"
Bcc:
jer45y@yahoo.com
I am still hoping/looking for a response. Thank you very much.
James Rowen
--- On Wed, 8/4/10, James Rowen
From: James Rowen
Subject: Fw: RE: SEI Summary/Final Draft
To: "Gary K. Korb"
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 3:03 PM
Gentlemen: I am preparing an update for my blog on the status of the SEI study and the EJTF's review. Can you kindly address the questions in the previous emails referenced so I can include that information in the update?
Thank you.
James Rowen
--- On Tue, 8/3/10, James Rowen
From: James Rowen
Subject: RE: SEI Summary/Final Draft
To: "Gary K.Korb"
Cc: jer45y@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 10:16 AM
Hi, Gary; I sent this on a Sat. and you may not have seen it. Hoping you can let me know what is happening with this EJTF/consultant report. Thanks.
James Rowen
--- On Sat, 7/31/10, James Rowen
From: James Rowen
Subject: RE: SEI Summary/Final Draft
To: "Gary K.Korb"
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 6:36 PM
Gary: I want to clarify what is happening with the final review of the EJTF consultants' work.
I continue to be concerned that this review, and perhaps an action by the task force, is to happen or has happened by email, and without an open meeting where there would be discussion before and including the public, and perhaps including a vote or decision on content that will be forwarded to the SEWRPC water supply advisory committee on water for inclusion in its pending draft report.
As I remember the procedures of the water supply advisory committee: chapters or reports were drafted by the consultants and staff and were mailed out, then edited, often-line-by-line during a scheduled meeting, with changes being made by consensus,or occasionally by vote, or promised for inclusion prior to the next meeting by Bauer, or Biebel, or the consultants - - and then the chapter or report with those edits and changes was sent out in the packet for the next meeting - - and then adopted in minutes' approval at the beginning of that subsequent meeting.
In fact, there were often corrections to the edits agreed upon as the minutes with the changes were being considered.
Do I have that wrong?
It seems to me that the process being permitted for the EJTF is different.
Can you please clarify this, and if my analysis is correct, I'd urge you not have one process for the advisory committee on water supply and another for the EJTF, as the EJTF's work will be added to the draft report, and the EJTF itself was borne out of frustrations with SEWRPC outreach.
Thanks.
And if not, why is that procedure not being followed by the EJTF?
James Rowen
--- On Mon, 7/26/10, Korb, Gary K.
From: Korb, Gary K.
Subject: RE: SEI Summary/Final Draft
To: "'Jim Rowen'"
Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:17 AM
Ken,
At the EJTF meeting of July 8th, it was determined that there was one remaining question to be answered---the potential impacts of the differential in the costs of water supply alternatives to the City of Waukesha. The potential need to schedule a meeting of the EJTF during the first week of August was discussed to consider this question and complete the review of the Socio-Economic Impact (SEI) Analysis. Professor Rast of UWM CED indicated the need to complete the study by the end of July and suggested that the review of the response to this last unanswered question, and the SEI, be completed by email before the end of July. The EJTF was in agreement to complete the study in this manner, rather than to schedule an additional meeting in August or to hold off until September.
Gary Korb
Regional Planning Educator
UW-Extension working with SEWRPC
262-547-6721
gkorb@sewrpc.org
From: James Rowen [mailto:jer45y@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Korb, Gary K.
Subject: Re: SEI Summary/Final Draft
Does the email review constitute the EJTF approval of the draft? Or will there be a meeting at which a resolution to that effect will be taken up?
James Rowen
--- On Tue, 7/20/10, Korb, Gary K.
From: Korb, Gary K.
Parties interested in SEWRPC’s Environmental Justice Task Force:
In presenting findings of the Socio-Economic Impact (SEI) Analysis during the July 8th meeting of the Task Force, Dr. Rast of UW-Milwaukee’s Center for Economic Development indicated that the Center would wrap up activity on the SEI by July 30, 2010. He requested that final review by the Task Force occur via email. We are providing you with the final materials which the Task Force has received and will highlight several key points.
No Significant Socio-Economic Impacts Found/Procedural Recommendation For the Future
The Center staff summarized the SEI of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) using a PowerPoint handout, which is attached above. The SEI responds to a series of five questions, addressing population distribution, job distribution, fiscal health and well-being of communities with relatively large populations of low and moderate income families, housing and land use patterns, and Federal regulations on civil rights and environmental justice—for each of the preliminary draft recommendations of the RWSP. In sum, no significant socio-economic impacts were found.
There is a key recommendation in the SEI for any future updates to the RWSP, that one or more representatives be selected from either the EJTF or the environmental justice community to serve on the technical advisory committee. As noted on July 8th, the Task Force in 2008 recommended a policy to SEWRPC—which is being implemented—stating that all future advisory committees will have a member or liaison specifically representing environmental justice interests.
Waukesha Water Utility’s Diversion Application/Unlikely Socio-Economic Impacts Under Any Alternative
Also on July 8th , there was one remaining question regarding whether or not cost differences between the alternatives set forth in the Waukesha Water Utility diversion application would have any differential socio-economic impacts, particularly if either of Waukesha’s groundwater alternatives would need to be implemented. The UWM Center offered to investigate this question, comprising an evaluation of what was perceived by some parties as a remaining “loose end” in the SEI.
The findings can be seen in the attachment above, are being fully incorporated into Chapter 4 of the SEI after the subsection entitled Comparison of Wholesale and Retail Water Supplies, and are reflected in the final bullet point at the bottom of p. 6, Chapter 7 (also attached). The UWM analysis concluded that a definitive answer was impossible due to assumptions on cost that may change over time. However, socio-economic impacts were unlikely, since current estimates are that future water rates in the Waukesha Water Utility service area will be significantly higher than in the Milwaukee Water Works service area, regardless of alternative.
Future Steps
With the additional analysis completed, UWM has indicated that its work will be finished within the next week. The Commission would like to thank the Center for Economic Development and its staff, particularly Policy Analyst Kate Madison, for the extra effort involved in conducting and documenting the SEI and addressing all EJTF questions and comments. The Task Force is similarly thanked for the time and energy invested in the SEI review process. Background information on the SEI and earlier chapters are available on the UWM website: http://www4.uwm.edu/ced/sewrpc/index.cfm.
After July 30th, the findings of the SEI will be summarized, along with a synthesis and response to all public comments received on the preliminary draft RWSP, with documentation occurring in the recommended plan chapter (Chapter X) of forthcoming SEWRPC Planning Report No. 52, A Regional Water Supply Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. The Summary and Conclusions of the SEI (Chapter 7) will become an appendix to the Planning Report. All of these materials will be provided to the Regional Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee for review and consideration, and then forwarded to the Regional Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Gary Korb
Regional Planning Educator
UW-Extension working with SEWRPC
262-547-6721
gkorb@sewrpc.org
No comments:
Post a Comment