Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [] <br />Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:02 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment IV <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />It is completely inappropriate and perhaps bordering on procedural misconduct for Michelle <br />McConnell to continue touse her position as a county public servant as a bully pulpit for advocacy <br />propoganda purposes while a formal public comment period remains open. McConnell's actions <br />amount to interference with public participation statutes RCW 36.70A140 and WAC 173-26-201(3). <br />Throughout the SMP process McConnell has constantly marginalized public criticism of the proposed <br />SMP as "myth" or as "misinformed," but to do so when the public is legally solicited to provide input is <br />over the top. By insinuating that there are "rumors circulating through our community" the message <br />below is a clear attempt to influence and control the content of public comment, and worse casts a <br />chilling and discouraging effect upon citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from <br />doing so now. The County and DCD has had four years to present their defense of the SMP; now is <br />the time for citizens to speak freely and for policy and decison-makers to LISTEN. After the close of <br />public comment the decision-makers can evaluate individual comments on their merit in consideration <br />of a final decision. <br /> <br /> <br />There is an important distinction between rumors - which have a negative conotation - and a <br />difference of opinion and interpretation. Obviously the SMP update is a very complex undertaking, <br />otherwise it wouldn't have taken four years to conduct. Key issues such as no net loss remain a work- <br />in-progress ("Even though the SMP update process has been underway for several years, the path <br />for SMPs to meet the no net loss policy is still merging." Kramer white paper). Even the Courts and <br />Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to <br />be undertaken. There are very few absolutes where SMPs updates are concerned, so for Ms. <br />McConnell to characterize interpretations of the SMP she doesn't agree with as "rumor" only reveals <br />her activist slant. Every source listed by Ms. McConnell is sponsored by DOE or the County, <br />presenting a one-sided story that many feel sugar-coats some very real consequences for <br />landowners. The 200 page SMP comes with fine print.I can go down the list below and offer <br />legitimate contrasts to every single point. And I intend to, and I expect my comments won't be <br />dismissed as based on"rumor." And while there may be disagreement, we live in a society where <br />differences of opinion are honored. This is particulary the case during formal public comment. Under <br />Ms. Mcconnell's standard there would be no need for public comment. Her comments below reflect <br />a view that is disconnected from the public it serves. <br /> <br /> <br />I find particularly disturbing the phrase, "we want citizens to be well informed as they form opinions <br />and potentially provide comment..." What the County or Michelle McConnellwants is not relevant <br />here. Public employees do no set the standard for what is "wanted" from citizens. And by her tone <br />and the one-dimesional information list, I beleive Ms. McConnell is mistaking <br />"inform" for "conform." Formal public comment is the opportunity for citizens to express their input <br />on the proposed regualtions and for the powers-that-be to LISTEN. And exactly what is meant by "we <br />want?" Who is "we?" I thought this process has moved on to Ecology review. Why is McConnell <br />1 <br /> <br />