“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

Mohandas Gandhi

Becoming a Tuolumne County supervisor is not unlike putting on a jacket. I put it on full of dreams to build a better future for our children. Now, four years wiser and with accomplishments, victories, and some failures behind, it’s with sadness (and a wee bit of relief) that I’ve taken it off.

It’s on the coat rack in your new office, Evan. Please take good care of it.

You probably know yourself pretty well now, but as you wear this Jacket, things you don’t know about governing and that you didn’t know that you don’t know about yourself will come to light. You’ll “find yourself” even if you weren’t lost. I guarantee it.

I didn’t think the learning curve would be too steep. I’d attended Board meetings for a year and a half. I understood the relationships between federal, state, and local governments. I’d worked in local government for a long time: the process was not new to me and politics was not either. I felt prepared to put on the Jacket.

I had no idea.

I had to learn where bodies are buried (and who buried them), how to balance my agenda with others’ motivated by distinct convictions and dreams, and I had yet to experience the level of public scrutiny that comes with being a county supervisor.  I had no idea how much I could give, how much I could take, and upon which hills I would ultimately be willing to die. I do now.

This fifty-four year old woman found herself.

The Jacket comes with preferential treatment, “yes” men and women, naysayers, and in the midst of circumstances that require humility. It brings duty and responsibilities, satisfaction and fulfillment. To be sure, it entails a degree of respect and some power too, though not nearly so much as one might think.

Wearing it well necessitates simple, yet critical math skills. There are various ways to get the three votes a supervisor needs to get anything done. Over time I expect you’ll try them all.

It requires what a friend calls the “splendid loneliness of leadership”: at times we take solitary paths against the current. We take them with courage, decisiveness, and without polling for public opinion. We aren’t elected to be followers after all, but leaders.

 As a Board member, you’ll make decisions that impact our everyday lives and you’ll be held accountable. No matter your decision, you’ll hear from constituents. They’ll tell you how they feel on the street, at the store, and call you at home. They’ll tell you when you’ve done well and when you’ve fallen short (and how far).

There are times to broker peace and times to run into the battle. I’ve learned when to listen, speak up, negotiate, and when to embrace controversial decisions.  Being a county supervisor comes with attacks from foes and people I thought were supporters. It comes with worry about Tuolumne County’s future and sleepless nights.

Despite all that, I have loved being District 3 Supervisor. Public service is a worthy calling. Wearing this Jacket has been an honor.

There are few better feelings than caring for your constituents and what’s important to them. Fail to care for them properly and someone will wrestle you for the Jacket in your next election. That is as it should be. They may try even if you do well.

This level of learning and performance is only achieved from inside the Jacket where much is expected. As you wear it, it requires focus, energy, and that you make it your top priority.  In the process, you will be revealed to yourself and others.

Many have worn the Jacket before and many will wear it after. None owned it, but it owned them. 

So, now it’s your turn, Evan. District 3 residents have entrusted the Jacket to you. Put it on with expectation and anticipation. Enjoy yourself.

And please, take good care of the Jacket. 

• Driven by radical science Conservation Biology is a crisis-driven field of science that incorporates multiple scientific, population, and sociological disciplines. It holds that time is of the essence and that ecosystem equilibrium can only be restored to the earth via the following actions:
  • Significant expansion of protected areas through wilderness, national monument, and other designation and through fee title acquisition and conservation easements on private lands (both said to be “voluntary”);
  • Restoration of connectivity (“refers to the degree to which organisms can move among habitat patches and populations. Individuals must be able to move between patches to meet their resource needs, while populations must be connected to allow for dispersion, gene flow, and re-colonization.” see more) between protected lands via continental scale wildlife corridors, (video 1 about wildlife corridors), one of which runs from Mexico to Canada up the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mtns. and another running up the Rocky Mountains; and
  • Rewilding large carnivore populations (wolves, grizzly bears, and mountain lions) to modify and restore fear-motivated grazing behavior in animals down the food chain (elk, deer, etc. that over-browse since natural predators are no longer a threat). That will, it is believed, make a critically important adjustment in the ecosystem and lead to the restoration of ecosystem equilibrium.

Diligent efforts on the part of adherents promoting solutions to environmental problems such as Assisted Migration (which proposes to transplant species like the gray wolf into areas it historically inhabited as a climate change strategy) and a proliferation of conservation programs in universities around the world have propelled conservation biology to virtually unchallenged pre-eminence in the scientific community. Read “A Mission Driven Discipline: growth of conservation biology” by Meine, Soule, and Noss.

That’s all for now, Bob. Next, you’ll learn more about some of the nonprofit organizations that are behind the rewilding movement.

My question is this:  who do you think is listening to Dave Foreman and his ilk?  For all of the many, many environmental groups I belong to, I have not heard anything about him or his activities for at least a decade, so I can’t imagine who his power base is supposed to be.  It does not seem to me that any of the actions he is advocating have any steam at all…what am I missing?

Great point AND questions, Bob! Who is listening? Lots of folks – you’ll see.

Who is Foreman’s power base? If you don’t count the nongovernmental organziations and major environmental foundation funders, the gubmint is Foreman’s power base, Bob. Yes, federal, state, regional, and sadly, sometimes even local.

Foreman’s not center stage in mainstream environmental discussions these days, but his principles and goals VERY MUCH are. The philosophy, science, and big picture came from him, Soule, and others. The big picture’s responsible for much of what we’ve seen (and will see) take place on federal and state lands and resource management and planning. It drives planning commissions and County Boards of Supervisors too, though few of them realize it.

We don’t realize that what we’ve seen and done so far is part of a larger plan. We adopt new ordinances, prepare new plans – to protect wildlife and improve habitat. We experience new regulations, management changes, and access restrictions on federal lands and see them as random actions to address localized problems and/or improve the environment, habitat, and benefit wildlife.  But when you superimpose rewilding goals and principles on the changes here over the last twenty years, a pattern and greater purposes emerge.

Here? In Tuolumne County? For example, did you know that there is already a wildlife corridor planned by California Dept. of Fish and Game and Caltrans for habitat connectivity that covers a broad swath of the Stanislaus River watershed roughly from the Sonora Pass area down to the foothills and the Central Valley? And you know that a good deal of the land below the forest is private… Wait ’til you see the map.

Corridors are to be areas where wildlife can pass unmolested by noise, impassable fencing, and crossing as few roads as possible. While the corridors are said to be “voluntary” when crossing private lands, documents repeatedly note the need to “guide” local land use decisions. That likely means California Department of Fish and Game will require significant mitigation for negative impacts to wildlife for any building activity on private land. Many uses will likely be restricted and/or prohibited.

Further, in July 2010 the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the USFWS to compel them to prepare a recovery plan for the gray wolf that includes California and it appears, Tuolumne County. The CBD, an extremely effective litigation organization to promote and protect biodiversity, identifies Tuolumne County on that map as a likely host for wolves. Don’t believe me? Go see the maps on pg. 13. 

So besides that, what’s my point?

Well, Bob, the point of this series is that the policies that are driving our federal, state, and local actions come directly from folks who take their cues from Foreman, Michael Soule, and others. They want to take us further than I think most of us are willing to go. If we don’t wake up and question what’s happening, we’ll get there: where we don’t want to go.

No one is talking about Foreman and conservation biology because mainstream America will react exactly like you did in referring to Foreman as “him and his ilk”.  The folks who are pushing this don’t want to compromise their progress by talking about Foreman. But once you investigate the dots I’ve connected, I don’t see how the rewilding big picture plan can be denied.

The evidence I’m presenting isn’t from some conspiracy theory. It’s from the rewilding folks: in their own words, on their own websites, and it’s validated by links I’ll provide to implementing agencies , the gubmint, if you will.

I think most environmentalists aren’t pushing this stuff, but are being propelled along without knowing about it. It’s the radical ones that are embedded in federal, state, and regional governments and universities. We’ve got a few here locally too, Bob.

Normal environmentalists – you and others – have much more in common with industry folks doing their best to be light on the land than you do with the radicals. You care about your community. The radicals, quite frankly, don’t.

We’ve got to band together. But unfortunately, every time industry folks talk about good stewardship in grazing or logging, all environmentalists recoil in distrust and disgust. And every time someone mentions “green” or environmental values, the other side recoils in distrust and disgust.

This plays to the benefit of the radicals.  The conflict we experience as a result, tears apart communities that could be working together to take care of their natural resources and the economy.

This conflict and the radicals’ disregard for human communities and socioeconomic interests are evident in the controversy over de-listing the gray wolf ( see  Rift between the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Defenders of Wildlife). Who could argue that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation isn’t concerned about wildlife or effective in conservation? Read it and see.

The fact of the matter is that communities working with county government, environmental organizations, state and federal agencies, individuals, and others can come up with workable solutions to longstanding and bitter conflict. I’ll publish a posting about that effort – the Owyhee Initiative –  soon.

Interestingly, some of the groups that support rewilding were part of the Initiative, a successful process that was signed into law by Pres. Obama last year. It seems they felt that what they got outweighed what they gave up.

My concern in all of this is that we desperately need to wake up and understand where we are being driven and work toward balance instead. But rural communities and their residents, via the local governments that represent them, can’t get to balance without having some leverage: a legitimate seat at the table that allows at least as much influence as those who litigate.

We’ve tried so-called collaborative processes for years and the overall trend hasn’t been good for rural communities and traditional rural ways of life. That’s why I asked industry folks at a Board meeting recently, “how’s that collaboration  been working for you?”). They didn’t answer.

The evidence I’ve found will be in my postings over the next few days. Like I warned the other day, connecting the rest of the dots will come together staccato-quick from here on out. And to minimize what you have to read I’ll give it to you in small chunks, in outline form.

You’re about to discover exactly who it is that listens to Foreman and his ilk. Get ready to read, click on links, and connect the dots.

You too, Bob.

I found a video of Dave Foreman speaking at the 2010 Moving Mountains Extinction Symposium in Telluride. In it, he states,

“Aldo Leopold said, ‘There are those who can live without wild things and those cannot…’ “I do not want to live in a world without wild things.  Those wild things are my neighbors. They are there and they bring me happiness…”

I believe you’ll find the video and his perspective very interesting in the context of connecting our dots.

His address in the video is faithful to his narrative in Rewilding North America, except he prefers that instead of referring to the present day as the “human-caused 6th great extinction event in history”, it should now be called ”the 1st mass murder of life”. He believes we are in an extinction crisis that will not end until we give living things “more room”.

If you don’t have time to read the book, watching the video should give you a good understanding of why he believes more protected areas, wildlife corridors, and reintroduction of the wolf, grizzly bear, and mountain lion are  essential prerequisites to saving the earth. Here it is:

Video of David Foreman  at 2010 Moving Mountains Extinction Symposium

Foreman, as you well know by now, founded EarthFirst! and went on to become a key figure in the rewilding movement along with Michael Soule (founder of the Wildlands Network).

I also located a newsletter he wrote in 2007 railing against anti-conservationists and what he calls a myth – that there’s a federal government war being waged against the West and traditional values. Actually, he claims Westerners overwhelmingly favor protected areas and rewilding.

Foreman may not be a member of EarthFirst! anymore, but he’s still got an eco-warrior’s propensity for confrontation:

“The truth is that a loud and big-bucks-mighty minority, some of their employees, their beholden politicians, and a small number of throwback ranchers and fearful populists (bumpkin proletarians) do oppose protection of public land, but most of the folks in the West—urban and rural—prize public lands and find them to be a vital part of what makes the West the West. Nonetheless, the “War on the West” claim is made so often and so shrilly that many fall for it—even in the West, even among a few newly arrived or naive conservationists.”

Read the entire piece:

The Angry West, from Uncle Dave Foreman’s Around the Campfire, The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org, Issue 16 November 2, 2007

We went to every festival and Farmer's Market asking folks to tell us, "What's important to me in District 3?" Here we are in Twain Harte on a hot day in July, 2006.

Four years ago when I was running for Supervisor, I visited each community to learn what is important to you. I went to farmers markets and festivals with flip chart, colored pens, and a question: “What’s important to you in District 3?”

Since I am not running for another term as Supervisor, many of you have asked me who I am endorsing – what’s important to me? I hadn’t planned to endorse, but enough of you have asked now that I will consider doing so this week.

I apologize in advance to the candidates for the fast turnaround time. Flexibility and quick responses are great character traits for this job.

I’ve watched all three candidates carefully over the last few months to determine who might best serve you, advance projects I’m working on, and champion issues you told me are important. I like all three of of the candidates as individuals, but this potential endorsement isn’t about personality or about finding a clone.

For those of you who don’t care what I think, let me acknowledge that an endorsement from me and two bits might be worth a cup of coffee in Twain Harte or Tuolumne. An endorsement is simply my opinion that you can take or leave.

So Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Bonnot, and Mr. Royce, here’s the deal. If you would like my endorsement (and you may not), please respond via email in writing to this Supervisor at info and answer the questions below by 8 pm Tuesday, June 1st. If you are unable to respond within that time or would prefer not to be considered, I’ll understand.

I’ll evaluate your responses and announce a decision (endorsement or no recommendation) on Weds. the 2^nd. Please understand I may post portions, all, or none of your responses for public review and dialogue, however, I’m not making the decision by committee. My endorsement, if I make one, comes from me alone.

District 3 Candidate’s Endorsement Questions

Please answer the following questions. Please don’t write a novel – brief, concise answers best fit this accelerated time frame.

1. How will you communicate with District residents (blog, newsletters, office hours, etc.)?
2.  Give an example of your listening and conflict resolution ability.
3. How could the Board increase public accountability and transparency?
4. How do you feel about increasing fees and taxes in good times and under the current poor economic conditions?
5. In reducing the county budget, which services would you vote to protect, which are not as important and why?
6. What is your understanding of coordination? Do you support or oppose the Board’s involvement in federal and state agency decision-making processes?
7. Do you support the hiring of a natural resources analyst to review environmental documents and agency plans? Why or why not?
8. Give your perspective on multiple uses and special land designations in the National Forest. Are there some that you feel should not be permitted and why?
9. Have you read the proposed Land Use Plan? Please comment on the reason to have or not have such a Plan.
10. Do you plan to be actively engaged in public lands issues?
11. What is your philosophy on land use planning and private property rights?
12. What are your top three priorities as Supervisor?
13. What else should I know and consider about your potential to serve as District 3 Supervisor?

Sonora, Calif., (May 26, 2010)…The Forest Service today announced that 28 Stanislaus National Forest campgrounds and picnic areas will be open to accommodate visitors and campers for this Memorial Day weekend. Due to the heavy snow pack at higher elevations this year, a number of campgrounds will open later as the snow melts. All of the Forest’s 52 developed campgrounds, offering 1,391 campsites, are scheduled to be open and available by mid-summer this year.

For more info, visit the USFS website.

25^th District State Assembly Republican candidate Teri Murrison is crying foul over a Tuesday decision by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly that will allow the state to take $2.05 billion from local redevelopment agencies.

According to the Sacramento Bee the funding will be transferred to local education obligations through 2011. The transfer of $1.7 billion of the total amount is scheduled for next week.  

Stated Murrison, ““There’s a saying among county supervisors that whatever isn’t tied down belongs to the state and whatever the state can pry up isn’t tied down. The court just handed the state a major plank of local services on a silver platter. They’ll be back.”

“Redevelopment dollars build houses, public works infrastructure, and give new life to blighted communities. The judge’s ruling is a worrisome development. It means that the already cocky state government is allowed to come in and take local money once again.”

“The ruling affirms the Governor’s action to take local redevelopment dollars and give them to schools because Sacramento can’t pay its own bills,” Murrison said. “No one begrudges schools the money, but the state’s lack of self-control is appalling. Where are the grownups?”

###

Being Chair does come with challenges though, chief among them: managing distinct and opposing interests like district residents, out of district residents, fellow Board members, staff, and the County itself. As you can imagine, it got tricky at times. It was not unlike keeping breakable plates spinning simultaneously.

There were and still exist institutional obstacles in County government to greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability that must be reformed for the Board to lead most effectively. Conditions are, however, light years ahead of where they were when I first ran for office in 2006 and they continued to improve in 2009.

But not all areas improved. Not yet. I’ve learned to raise an issue at least three times so folks can see the forest for the trees. Reforms accomplished this year along with reforms that were rebuffed contributed to a greater level of awareness among Board and staff. Overall that’s a good thing.

Worst of years

I can’t name all the things that qualified 2009 to be the worst of years, but the state budget and its impacts on the County budget are at the top of the list. The state worked hard to divert local tax revenues for its own use, but ultimately was only partially successful. As the economy worsened, the public and staff began to experience stress. Multiple iterations of the County budget were prepared and discarded as revenue forecasts continued to decline. Subsequently, County services and staffing cuts increased stress levels. Early on, we had to do more with less. By year’s end we were reduced to doing less with less.

The Board considered several controversial land use projects in 2009 including the Law and Justice Center property purchase and consideration of an appeal of a grading permit for a controversial antiquated subdivision in Twain Harte. I am particularly proud that the public and staff were heard and treated with respect and dignity on these issues regardless of the outcomes. And for the most part, the Board seems to have mastered disagreement amongst ourselves without holding grudges.

Best of years

There were a number of factors that qualify 2009 as the best of years. Staff and elected officials voluntarily reduced benefits and went on furlough to save County services and jobs. Further, despite the critical need to reduce County expenditures to match revenues, the Board affirmed the public’s priorities of maintaining funding for Roads, Sheriff, and Fire services, while it minimized service cuts to the public and layoffs of employees.

In fact, after an accounting error was discovered in the draft budget in August, three previously unfilled Sheriff’s deputy positions were added, critical recreation services were retained (pools!), and library branches weren’t impacted quite as heavily as they would otherwise have been. These were all bright spots in light of the privatization of some services and in light of the cuts we had to make.

In a well-timed effort to improve the local economy, the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) got off to an aggressive start in recruiting new and expanding existing businesses here. And while the County lost a number of businesses due to the economy, TCEDA expects to make several major announcements in 2010 that should help the local economy considerably.

The Board authorized Waste Management to implement a two cart recycling program in the areas they serve beginning next year. Although I was not in favor of extending the contract until 2022 without going out to bid, I am very much in favor of reducing, reusing, and recycling. We hired an illegal dumping enforcement officer this year, as well. His efforts should begin to be evident as folks learn that Tuolumne County has an active enforcement program.

Over the years, County residents and communities have experienced negative economic and quality of life outcomes as state and federal government agencies have not given serious consideration or even evaluated in much depth local concerns, needs and interests. This year a majority of the Board stepped up to voice concern relative to several state and federal resource decisions that will impact the local economy.

Given the loss of the SPI mill and other businesses in recent years, the fact that Tuolumne County contains 76% public lands, strong historic, traditional, and cultural ties to the land, and the fact that state and federal statutes give counties the ability to be involved in their decision-making processes early on, it is critical that this happen. In addition, the Board signified its intent to establish and maintain productive and beneficial relationships with other levels of government.

One vehicle to encourage that to happen – federal and state agency coordination – was controversial, but the Board did not reverse an action in 2007 to initiate coordination with federal and state agencies. The Board’s dialog led to a Sonora Area Foundation grant to Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment (TuCARE) to work with community and economic stakeholders on a draft land use plan to establish local policy for planning and management of federal and state lands and resources.

The plan doesn’t establish environmental policy (numerous advocates, federal, state, and local statutes, and policies already exist for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment). Rather, the plan deals with the human environment (which is interrelated with the natural environment). It’s important to note that the land use plan does not revise or impact existing state, federal, or local laws, nor does it allow the public to make federal and state agency decisions. It will primarily apprise agencies of local policies and values that must be better factored into decision-making and management actions in Tuolumne County.

The draft land use plan will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Planning Committee on Thurs., Jan. 7^th at 1:30 pm in the Board Chambers. Consideration of approval by the Board will follow later in the month or in February.

General Activities in 2010 (in addition to weekly Board meetings, review of agenda materials, and committee assignments.)

• The County completed and dedicated the Hope House, a transitional housing program for kids aging out of the foster care system;
• Along with key community and agency leaders, formed the Safety Net Agencies  Planning Group to help bridge agency shortfalls and service gaps in light of the state’s budgetary problems which inspired a Sonora Area Foundation campaign that raised over $500k to expand efforts to meet the most basic needs of our struggling neighbors;
• Worked with leaders of ATCAA’s food bank, University Cooperative Extension, Ag Advisor’s office, Master Gardeners, and others to plan and seek funding for community gardens to provide extra food for the food bank, local wholesale market, and individuals;
• At Supervisor John Gray’s request, initiated new supervisor orientation meetings with all department heads;
• Worked to improve County/federal agency communication and problem solving;
• Participated in an advisory committee for the Tuolumne County Courts to plan and implement a community mediation program to reduce the number of court cases;
• Participated in ATCAA/Central Sierra Connect’s efforts to determine local need for Broadband and expand its adoption;
• Supported a successful effort for Habitat for Humanity to obtain funding to purchase property in Jamestown for a multiple unit housing project;
• Involved in local foster children placement issues, participated in foster parent networking group, and County’s Peer Quality Review process;
• Served on the Sonora Regional Medical Center’s Civic Advisory Board and Dawn’s Light Grief Counseling advisory board;
• Participated in Cities, Counties, Schools Partnership Summit on Governance examining potential reform measures in light of state budget and governance problems;
• Worked with the Tuolumne County Resource Conservation District, The Stewardship Council, and other agencies to ensure Kennedy Meadows is locally owned and managed;
• Convened first joint board meeting with Tuolumne Utilities District on water issues, attended City and County of San Francisco Tuolumne River stakeholders meetings;
• Monitored State Delta Water Bills and related water issues and legislation, worked with Senator Cogdill’s staff and TUD to analyze and educate County staff and Board members;
• Participated in planning and the Department of Water Resources’ Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) interview that resulted in local IRWMP’s designation for funding of future watershed projects;
• Reviewed and commented on United States Forest Service (USFS) Travel Management Rule Plan EIR, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) fish stocking EIR/EIS, and USFS planned removal of Relief Cabin by PG&E;
• Requested California Legislature and Congress to increase efforts to support and fund fuels management; and
• Commented on proposed new electricity transmission line to New Melones by Transmission Agency of Northern CA (TANC).

Chair District 3-related Activities

• Held monthly district office hours in Tuolumne, Twain Harte, and Mi-Wuk Village, town hall meetings, and published over 75 blog posts on County, District 3, and state issues;
• Worked with community members to convert Mi-Wuk Village library branch into the volunteer-staffed Mi-Wuk Village Little Library in the Woods Community Center with T1 Internet service;
• Sought funding for Tuolumne parking & alleyway studies, partnered with Tuolumne community members o hold various public and town hall meetings to discuss the Tuolumne Community Plan, parking and alleyway studies, Memorial Hall use, and law enforcement  issues;
• Facilitated donation of Lyon’s Reservoir Trail parking area in Twain Harte to honor Supervisor Jim Peterson, sought and obtained additional implementation funding for Twain Harte trail, attended Sheriff’s Town Hall meeting;
• Participated in Pinecrest Circulation Study Stakeholder Group, supported Dodge Ridge Transit Bus;
• Attended meetings with Strawberry Property Owners Association, Cold Springs Property Owners Association, Tuolumne Township and The Women’s Improvement Society of Tuolumne,  Mi-Wuk Homeowners Association, Twain Harte Homeowners Association, and Pinecrest Permittees; and
• Established Snowplowing Advisory Committee.

Looking ahead in 2010

There remains much to be done in 2010. Several 2009 Board goals were not accomplished this year due to the extraordinary amount of staff time expended on budget revisions. One of our first actions on January 5^th will be to revisit those goals.

To give our kids a future and a hope and to ensure economic prosperity and quality of life, the Board must establish a youth advisory board to better understand what our kids would like Tuolumne County to look like in the future. It should also prioritize funding for a Resources Analyst to better stay on top of important decisions being made by other agencies, and fund the Board-approved but unfilled grant writer position.

Broadband should also continue to be an emphasis, especially in the Hwy 108 Corridor so we can nurture existing and a new generation of entrepreneurs and diversify the economy. We will also continue working with community fire districts and the City of Sonora to maximize fire protection Countywide.

Efficiency, transparency, and the accountability of County government must continue to increase next year. I am hopeful that it will be the year – my fourth year of advocating for it – that we implement online Board agenda management and video streaming to increase access to our meetings and citizen participation. Finally, the Board must continue to cultivate strong relationships with other government agencies: local, state, and federal. Our future depends on it.

So thanks to my colleagues for electing me Board Chair in 2009. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. Thanks also to staff, our videographer, Kathleen Conneau, audio streaming technician, Jim Garaventa, members of The Tuesday Club (regular spectators), and the public for the respect and honor given to this supervisor and the office of Board Chair.

Next year will have a new Chair (likely current Vice Chair Liz Bass) and new challenges, budgetary and otherwise. Counties, Tuolumne included, will be required to cut services further to continue to live within our means. There will be new crises with which to deal.

You can anticipate more of the worst, more of the best, and more uncertainty. But come what may, I promise you one thing for sure. Next year will go by just as quickly as did 2009. Maybe quicker.

County Supervisors frustrated, angry

Deputy County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl will read her memo (below) in the Public Comment portion of the BOS meeting this morning at 9:00 am. You can listen at: http://www.mymotherlode.com/multimedia/audio/. We are very appreciative of County Counsel Gregory Oliver and Carlyn Drivdahl’s advice of a year ago.  And even more so, of their prompt action to set the record straight.

We believe that the investigation was likely motivated by the actions of a small group that has opposed Tuolumne County’s taking advantage of its legal right to be an active participant in federal and state agency decision-making processes – coordination. If it was indeed the result of a complaint meant to discourage, it didn’t have the desired effect. We’re not backing away from a legal process that is about the only hope this County has of representing itself to other levels of government when it matters – before their decision is already made. 

The Board can’t stop the state or federal government from taking more of your property taxes. Neither can the Board stop agencies from taking actions required by federal and state laws – environmental or otherwise. But, unlike tax grabs, the Board can be at the table and advocate for local economic interests.

The process is legal and after all this furor has died down, coordination will be proved to be a helpful tool for consensus and for the good of all Tuolumne County residents.  Teri looks forward to working with those who are now opposed, but who may eventually see benefit in coordination. Finally, we encourage folks to be respectful in their expression of support or lack thereof for coordination. We all need to refrain from adding fuel to the fire. Hang in there!

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Supervisor Murrison
FROM: Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel
Carlyn M. Drivdahl, Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Out-of-State Travel and the Political Reform Act

In light of the recent article in the Union Democrat (“Murrison’s travel plan examined,” October 28, 2009), our office has prepared this memorandum to detail the legal advice we provided you and the steps taken in researching the Political Reform Act (“PRA”) statutes and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations regarding compensation for out-of-state travel expenses for County Supervisors. For purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that the out-of-state travel is to speak at a conference hosted by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

PRA Reporting Requirements and Limits Relating to Out-of-State Travel

When the County pays for a Supervisor’s transportation and necessary lodging and subsistence, it is not considered a gift or honorarium. (Gov. Code § 89506(d)(2); 2 CCR 18950.1(d).) These payments by the County are neither subject to PRA’s gift limits nor reportable on the Supervisor’s Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests. Whether or not the County is later reimbursed by the nonprofit for the travel payments is a separate issue that should not affect the reporting requirements of the individual Supervisor.

Payments, advances or reimbursements for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence, are not prohibited or limited by the PRA if:

• The travel is reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose, or to an issue of state, national or international public policy; and
• The travel is provided by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
(Gov. Code § 89506(a)(2); 2 CCR 18950.1(b).)

Although not subject to any limitation, since the travel is out-of-state, a direct payment by a nonprofit to the Supervisor who is traveling would need to be reported on the Supervisor’s Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

Transparency in Government Actions

This issue first arose in October of 2008 in connection with Supervisor Murrison’s participation at the Stewards of the Range A 501(c)(3) nonprofit – now American Stewards of Liberty. conference on intergovernmental coordination in Texas. In researching the PRA requirements with regards to this trip, Deputy County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl contacted the FPPC’s Technical Assistance Hotline on several occasions for advice on how Supervisor Murrison should handle these travel expenses. Although the FPPC does not guarantee the advice provided through the Hotline, our office was pointed to the regulations cited above, confirming our earlier research. This is the advice that was provided by our office to Supervisor Murrison and she acted in accordance with that advice. The County paid for the travel expenses of Supervisor Murrison. Later, the Stewards of the Range reimbursed the County for Supervisor Murrison’s travel expenses.

Further, the County has a requirement that the Board of Supervisors approve any out-of-state travel for individual Supervisors. (Tuolumne County Ordinance Code § 2.12.060(E).) The Board of Supervisors considered and approved Supervisor Murrison’s travel at its regular meeting on November 4, 2008.

Moving Forward

At this time, there is no indication from the FPPC that there were any missteps with regard to the advice our office provided Supervisor Murrison. It remains this office’s opinion that since the County paid for the out-of-state travel expenses for Supervisor Murrison, there was no need for Supervisor Murrison to include the payments on her Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

It is our office’s intent to request a written opinion from the FPPC with regard to out-of-state travel.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.

Cc: Board of Supervisors
Chris Bateman, Union Democrat
Walt Cook, Union Democrat
Roman Porter, FPPC Executive Director

Carlyn M. Drivdahl
Deputy County Counsel
Tuolumne County
(209) 533-5517