|
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: A request was made to
move items that were not addressed at previous meeting to
the beginning of the meeting to ensure that the past items
are discussed - specific item: Use of the RRWC name. Use of
RRWC name was moved to before break. Announcements moved to
first item after the break.
Agenda approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes approved
VOTING RULES: The Steering Committee
supported a proposal to increase the voting percentage to a
two thirds (2/3) majority rule:
"recommend that the full RRWC change
the voting percentage to a two thirds (2/3) majority vote
for a period of one year, at which time a new vote will be
taken to determine if the voting requirements will
change"
This was presented by three (3) representatives of the
Steering Committee (one from each caucus) to illustrate and
explain the reasons for their compromise position.
Discussion:
Pros:
- Proposal passed with two thirds (2/3) vote in
Steering Committee
- Economic caucus believes that to work together 2/3
shows greater support and consensus for decisions made by
the RRWC.
- Appears workable and shows support for all
concerns
- 2/3 represents a difference of only three (3)
votes.
Cons:
- Every other voting body is 50% plus 1
- 60% is already a super-majority
- Already decided this &endash; lets move on
- Vote in one year should be 60%
Proposal Amendment:
"recommend that the full RRWC change
the voting percentage to a two thirds (2/3) majority vote
for a period of one year, at which time the vote would
automatically revert back to 60% before any reconsideration
of 2/3 voting requirement."
|
Steering Committee Proposal
|
Amended Proposal
|
|
FIRST VOTE
|
SECOND VOTE
|
FIRST VOTE
|
SECOND VOTE
|
|
TOTAL RRWC VOTING MEMBERS: 46
NEED 60% TO PASS &endash; 28 VOTES
|
TOTAL RRWC VOTING MEMBERS: 47
NEED 60% TO PASS &endash; 29 VOTES
|
TOTAL RRWC VOTING MEMBERS: 46
NEED 60% TO PASS &endash; 28 VOTES
|
TOTAL RRWC VOTING MEMBERS: 47
NEED 60% TO PASS &endash; 29 VOTES
|
|
AYE: 27
|
AYE: 28
|
AYE: 17
|
AYE: 23
|
|
OPPOSE: 19
|
OPPOSE: 19
|
OPPOSE: 16
|
OPPOSE: 20
|
|
ABSTAIN: 0
|
ABSTAIN: 0
|
ABSTAIN: 13
|
ABSTAIN: 2
|
Neither proposal passed.
A request made on the floor to reconsider and vote one
more time on amended proposal. Request was seconded and
revote taken.
Amended Proposal: "recommend that the
full RRWC change the voting percentage to a two thirds (2/3)
majority vote until the first meeting of the year 2001 at
which time the vote would automatically revert back to 60%
before any reconsideration of 2/3 voting
requirement."
VOTE TALLY
AYE: 32
OPPOSE: 13
ABSTAIN: 0
AMENDED PROPOSAL APPROVED
MOU: Draft MOU sent to Resources Agency by
Budget/MOU work group. Jay Halcomb requested that a
delegation be sent to Sacramento to meet with Resources
Agency to discuss and finalize MOU. Suggestion to send one
representatives from each caucus. Budget/MOU work group will
meet to discuss which representatives will go. Members
interested in developing MOU contacted Jay Halcomb.
BUDGET: Draft budget presented by Jay Halcomb,
coordinator of Budget/MOU work group. The budget focuses on
broad categories to enable the RRWC to adjust funds as needs
are identified during the upcoming year.
Motion to accept as proposed.
Pros:
- Provide funding for new data gathering and
synthesis
- Presently the existing data is at different locations
and in different formats. Reliability and usability of
existing data has to be reviewed and evaluated. This task
is time consuming and complicated. Funding identified for
this process is reasonable.
Cons:
- SB 271 and SB291 identify funding for implementation
&endash; oppose spending two years for data gathering and
sythesis.
Comment:
Miles Croom, NMFS, stated that Circuit Riders has been
funded by NMFS to complete a GIS data system for the Russian
River watershed. This may enable RRWC funding to be used
elsewhere. GIS system is to compliment the information
system being considered by RRWC.
VOTE TALLY:
AYE: 46
OPPOSE: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
PROPOSAL APPROVED
COUNCIL COORDINATOR: Tim Derry presented a
draft request for proposal - seeking input from RRWC.
Comments:
- Responsibility for overseeing RRWC process should
remain with Steering Committee &endash; not be given to
the coordinator. Tim explained that the coordinator will
support the day to day operation of the RRWC.
- Should not take direction from individual members
&endash; only from RRWC and Steering Committee.
Coordinator would report to full RRWC for some matters
but for day-to-day operations of the RRWC - report to
Steering Committee.
- GIS knowledge should not be given the importance
identified in draft
- Emphasis of budgetary understanding is too
great.
- Change title of position to: Watershed Council
Coordinator
- Should be more than 20 hours per week, probably full
time
Contact Time Derry if you are interested in developing
request for proposal.
PROPOSAL: Representatives take RFP to caucuses for
input &endash; input will be reviewed by Steering Committee
and the Steering Committee will finalized the RFP for
submittal and support from different agencies.
VOTE TALLY:
AYE: 43
OPPOSE: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PROPOSAL APPROVED
USE OF RRWC NAME:
Two Main Concerns:
- Enough time to make decisions
- This will be discussed as part of Rules of
Operation
- Don’t have RRWC name linked to programs or goals
that RRWC was not involved in developing.
- Agencies should only make statements about RRWC that
are accurate &endash; all else identified as opinion
&endash; individuals within RRWC should not speak for
RRWC.
- Public Outreach work group will assist in managing
and ensuring that this is not a problem in the
future.
- There should be clear disclaimer that state
individuals and/or groups are not speaking for RRWC,
unless approved by RRWC. Suggested wording:
- "Name of RRWC shall not be used as an endorsement
and/or as a representation without the consent of the
RRWC."
- Suggestion that language be refined and brought back
to RRWC for approval.
ANNOUNCMENTS:
- RRWC Holiday Party &endash; January 7, 2000 at
7:00p.m. at Brutoco Winery in Hopland. Bring Snacks!
- 1999 Russian River Clean-up included 225 volunteers
&endash; was very successful.
- June 3, 2000 &endash; National River Clean-up Day
&endash; join the effort!
- Grant received by Kathy Reese for the removal of
illegal dumping on agricultural land along Mark West and
Laguna &endash; removed 920 tires, 800lbs. of glass, plus
refrigerators, plastic, trash, etc.
- Coastal Conservancy reported on many and varying
activities in the Russian River watershed.
- Fish Friendly Farming is being recognized and adopted
in other parts of California and the world.
- EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program)
&endash; accepting proposals &endash; see Tom Schott,
NRCS, USDA offices
- California Native Plants Society presentation at
Flamingo Hotel on December 9, 1999 at 10:00 a.m..
- Upper Eel Watershed Forum is recruiting for
coordinator position.
- Grape Creek Restoration &endash; very cooperative
effort &endash; good opportunity for field trip. Bob Coey
suggested that RRWC visit site.
- Concern for levels of mercury in Lake Pillsbury. Bob
Klamt responded that the issue has been referred to the
office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Mercury
is being monitored in Lake Mendocino and lake Sonoma and
when the levels get to a threshold, they will be reported
for action, as well.
RULES OF OPERATIONS: Draft distributed for
consideration &endash; no vote today.
Comments:
- Voting criteria should be amended
- Organizing the RRWC by caucus is unnecessarily
divisive and should be eliminated.
- Reconsider maintaining membership in caucuses
&endash; open up so members (instead of caucuses)
identify replacements or some other way of
organizing.
- Concern that agenda not be closed going into meeting
(i.e. do all agenda items have to go through Steering
Committee prior to general meeting? &endash; No, the
exception would be emergencies and would need a high
percentage of RRWC vote to add to agenda.). Agenda needs
to be finalized prior to RRWC meeting so that material
can be mailed.
- Membership in RRWC should be approved by RRWC
&endash; not by caucuses
- Steering Committee quorum with representation of all
caucuses may be a problem &endash; one caucus can hold
Steering Committee hostage and prevent action.
- Each proposal before RRWC should have sponsorship
from at least one member of each caucus.
- Page 5 Section 3 &endash; add that work groups must
have representation of all 3 caucuses for proposals being
brought to the RRWC to minimize problems and remove the
debates taking place at RRWC meetings.
- Important that work groups able to meet without every
caucus represented at meetings.
- Reword section to enable workgroups to designate a
liaison with Steering Committee.
- Tighten voting procedure &endash; 1) Distribution of
voting cards 2) steps in voting process.
- Consider conflict of interest &endash; no financial
reward for RRWC members for work coming out of RRWC.
- Rules of operation should be written to enable
document to meet the State’s non-profit
requirements.
- Length of term for Steering Committee should be
limited to 1 year. Let caucuses decide if representatives
should serve for more that one year.
- What constitutes a quorum?
- How should proxies/alternates be handled
Contact Al Giordono if interested in finalizing rules of
operation:
Dennis O’Brien
Suzanne Marr
Bob Clemens
Kathy Hayes
Nick Tibbets
Jay Halcomb
Rusty Klassen
AGENDA FRAMEWORK: Members of the RRWC requested
that the Steering Committee present a proposed agenda
framework to structure future agendas. Steering Committee
has reviewed and supports idea. RRWC requested that this
item be the first item of business at the next meeting.
Kathy Reese requested that some meetings be held during
the evening to replace some Saturday meetings. RRWC
supported Saturday meetings being replaced by an occasional
evening meeting.
NEXT MEETING AND AGENDA ITEMS:
- Next RRWC meeting: January 29, 1999 at the Cloverdale
Veteran’s Hall
- Discussion of proposed agenda framework first item of
business at the next meeting.
- Miles Croom, NMFS will give a presentation about
Chinook and Steelhead listings.
- Consider placing representatives of Mendocino and
Sonoma Counties Board of Supervisors as voting members of
RRWC.
Page last updated February 10, 2000 (FC)
|