The year's business has gotten off to a quick start.
At the January 8 WCVC General Membership meeting, Sue Hughes proposed some changes to the WCVC governing charter (pdf) that reflect discussions that took place at the Santa Clara and Ventura River Watershed meetings. The changes are limited and specific: a proposal to expand the WCVC Steering Committee from six people to nine.
Six of those spots would continue to be filled by two representatives of each watershed. The other three would be filled by a representative from each the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, the Farm Bureau of Ventura County, and the IRWM Program Director—namely, Tully Clifford of WPD, John Krist of the Farm Bureau, and Sue Hughes. The primary motivation for this, as Sue Hughes explained an email to WCVC membership (pdf), was to "include on the Steering Committee entities with a regional focus."
After much discussion, it was decided by the group at large that the issue should go back to each watershed for discussion. Steering Committee members will bring their watershed's recommendation to a Steering Committee meeting to be held once all the watershed groups have met, probably mid to late March. Then the Steering Committee's recommendation will go to the WCVC General Membership for ratification at the April 9 meeting.
The Calleguas Creek Watershed group met on January 21. The general consensus was that the Calleguas Creek Watershed would not support the proposed changes to the make-up of the Steering Committee, but would certainly be open to discussing ways to increase the participation of regional entities in aspects of what the WCVC does. All levels of government are increasingly focused on regional cooperation, the IRWM process is gaining in importance in the statewide conversation about water resource solutions, and funding streams are bending ever more towards regional projects. It is imperative that the WCVC keep pace with the evolution of the statewide water landscape, but the Calleguas Watershed is determined to maintain the primacy of the watersheds in the structure of our coalition.
What those alternative mechanisms for regional entity participation might be—an advisory group, or a technical review committee, or something else entirely—will be the matter at hand at the next meeting of the Calleguas Creek Watershed, scheduled for
February 18, 2015
at 10:00 a.m.
at Calleguas Municipal Water District
2100 Olsen Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
We hope to see you there.
______________________
For a longer synopsis of the 1/21 Calleguas Watershed meeting, read on:
The original governance structure of the WCVC was arrived at through the consensus of the stakeholders as a kind of republican ideal. Votes of the WCVC general membership would always be imperfect; the disparate sizes and compositions of the three watersheds, the ability of stakeholders to make general membership meetings, and the varying levels of interest in any given topic functionally preclude the possibility of a true plenum. Instead, it was decided that a Steering Committee of six members—an easily arrived-at quorum—would bring forth the conscience of their respective watershed's stakeholders, and through perfectly equitable and representational discussion would arrive at the best course of action for the region as a whole. Each of the watersheds is and always has been free to determine its own selection process of representation and its own advisory structure, and a variety of stakeholders have been chosen from among the watersheds' diverse membership to act as Steering Committee representatives.
Another of the concerns regarding the change in Steering Committee membership is along these same lines, and has to do with consensus. The WCVC was conceived as a consensus-based organization, and has always striven to reach that goal; the WCVC charter and our IRWM Plans spell that out. Discussion, negotiation and sacrifice have been the watchwords and practices of the WCVC at the watershed level, the Steering Committee level, and the general membership level since the coalition's inception, and have been rewarded time and again with success in our endeavors. Increasing the size of any governing body increases the opportunity for division; shifting from an even number of voters to an odd perforce allows for the ascension of a simple majority, which is a step away, even if only subconsciously, from the paradigm of consensus.
To describe that in plainer language: as it is now, if one watershed is really excited about a certain project and the other two are stridently opposed, it's pretty obvious, from a consensus-based perspective, that the idea should be abandoned by this particular body at this particular time. Should there be an extra three votes, however, those two opposing watersheds, with their four votes, could be defeated by an alliance of the excited watershed with the three regional entities. This is hypothetical, of course, and any example we could come up with to exemplify it would be wildly so, but the point remains.
Even more fundamentally than manipulating votes is the concept of counting votes at all—and the inherent implication that faith in the regional representation that has been the hallmark of the WCVC is beginning to wane. This is the concept that brought the discussion of a change to the charter to light. A quick glance at the project suites that have received funding in the last four rounds of state grant disbursement reveals that the WCVC has indeed considered and even prioritized such projects; in fact, it has been central to our success, and other regions often contact the WCVC specifically to find out what our process has been.
That being said, questions were raised whether our process could be further strengthened by viewpoints that are regionally focused:
- What additional information could be brought to bear by agencies and/or representatives whose perspectives are not watershed specific?
- How can we best adapt to the changing focus at the state level—both funding- and regulation-wise—to continue our success going forward?
- What is the optimal relationship between various stakeholders' worlds and what is the best forum in which to align those?
- Which regional entities and/or nongovernmental organizations should "get seats" on the committee, and how should their selection be decided?
As our IRWM program implementers, grant administrators, plan writers, liaisons with the state and general facilitators/saviors of the coalition, WCVC staff has a unique understanding of both what's required of project proponents and their individual abilities to meet those requirements. Four rounds into the distribution of grant funds, Sue and Lynn have a pretty good idea of what the process takes, where the hurdles are and who's had challenges getting over them. This is unarguably valuable input to have in the decision-making process when it comes to selecting project proponents for grant applications, and the Calleguas Watershed hopes to be able to rely on WCVC staff expertise on these issues in the future. Hopefully Sue and Lynn know that the coalition relies on them now, and that we invite them to speak up and welcome their input at all stages of the process. Whether that's as a voting member of the Steering Committee, or through some other mechanism is something that the Calleguas Watershed would like to investigate further.
What those alternative mechanisms might be—an advisory group, or a technical review committee, or something else entirely—will be the matter at hand at the next meeting of the Calleguas Creek Watershed, scheduled for
February 18, 2015
at 10:00 a.m.
at Calleguas Municipal Water District
2100 Olsen Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
We hope you'll join us.
We encourage you to subscribe to the Calleguas Creek Watershed blog. It's easy—just enter your email in the box at the top left of this page that reads "Subscribe by Email."
We encourage you to subscribe to the Calleguas Creek Watershed blog. It's easy—just enter your email in the box at the top left of this page that reads "Subscribe by Email."
No comments:
Post a Comment