IS BAYKEEPERS' EXTERNAL PROPOSAL C DEAD?

[zenspearo]

But I disagree, and some of the smartest guys on the fishing sides disagree, that External C can be ignored.

We need to apply maximum pressure to eliminate C, because it is a drag on consumptives.

If it is evaluated in Round 2, it will get huge science scores (bigger and ridiculous closures = higher scores. No brainer there) and look like the fair hair child of all the proposals, and that put HUGE pressure on the consumptive RSGs to give up more to keep up. Even though External C is unrealistic, it is a foot at the neck of our RSG reps.

WE NEED TO RELIEVE THAT PRESSURE OR OUR RSG REPS WILL BE FORCED TO GIVE UP MORE AND MORE.

That's our job.

[zenspearo]

The enviro RSGs are pushing hard to keep External C in place. They WANT this. We NEED to get rid of it.

**********************************

Fellow Stakeholders and members of the BRTF:

This new recommendation badly misses the mark. Because the Blue Ribbon Task Force clearly asked the RSG to emphasize SAT guidance (at preferred level no less), come off positions, reduce the number and duplication in arrays, and pursue cross-interest support while reducing the number of arrays on the table, I would hope and expect them to reject this recommendation because it completely fails to preserve these critical process fundamentals. I’ll only address recommendation #1 because the other three either are incompletely described or would require far greater process tweaks than either the decision made last Wednesday or the unwise concept of reversing that.

Before the RSG work sessions on May 20-21, the process leadership gave us our charge. Speaking favorably about the effort to unify sport and commercial fishing interests by FIC/FIN, Chairman Benninghoven said “now, cross that line in the sand.” Scott McCreary presented the BRTF guidance, saying “the BRTF is willing and able to make a recommendation,” and indicated the goal was “to advance the broadest range possible.” The phrase “if you don’t, the BRTF will” was used. Director Wiseman answered questions about duplication saying “I’m concerned about duplication….similar proposals don’t have the same weight.” The term “gaming” was used.

The clear implication was that there are overarching goals and guidance here that are not to be ignored. Our RSG is tasked to meet these goals in ways that we deem best based on our local and personal knowledge. But these goals were clearly presented as essentials. These goals are the purview of the BRTF, and we were given every expectation that they would be enforced. “Promise” was the term used in Mr. Wiseman’s memo last Wednesday in regards to duplicative proposals. I believe that this entire vote on arrays should have been avoided by merging one or more duplicative arrays as we were told would be the case. We can still do that of course, and move on.

In making the announcement last Wednesday evening that all seven proposals would move forward and receive evaluation, the MLPA leadership acted to say essentially “Wait. The guidance was not met. Round 2 produced the duplication we warned against. It did not advance a range of options as requested given the unnecessary elimination vote. It did not advance from the vote an array that meaningfully addressed the Science Advisory Panel Guidance. We must restore balance.” It was not an easy decision nor a very pretty one. But it was well advertised and clearly expected by those that read the guidance and heard the charge. It reflected the obligation of the process to advance arrays representing the range of ideas among the stakeholders. It acted to preserve a working platform for cross-interest work by all stakeholders, not just those given a majority standing in the RSG who do not enjoy this same advantage in the outside world.

I submitted a letter yesterday (pasted below) describing the process needs that last Wednesday’s memo preserved. I regret that now this action is being reconsidered by some, and ask that the BRTF does not reconsider it. To support the recommendation received today to about-face on Wednesday’s decision, the BRTF would leave the process in the following condition:

No array that meets the Science Guidelines or the BRTF guidance to emphasize their preferred levels.
No evaluation of Round 2 iteration SAT compliant arrays to inform and define tradeoffs and options for meeting these goals at levels of impact that are acceptable.
Reinforcement of artificially created “majority rule” straw vote process that removes valuable ideas from consideration
A dramatically lopsided round 2 outcome that duplicates single-interest values in four of seven arrays
Damaged process leadership credibility that ground rules, guidance and MLPA Act goals will not be enforced or retained if unpopular

Previous successful MLPA study regions were based on clear statements (platforms) for stating core values and interests of each “side.” The Staff acted in a previous region to protect fishing interests as represented in an external and internal array from the results of a straw vote that went the other way. The pillars of successful MLPA implementation in prior study regions were restored and advanced by staff last Wednesday as has been done in the past. Now some stakeholders – who already have a decisive numeric advantage as well as a dominant position in the process reflected in four of seven arrays – insist that the sole remaining platform needed to advance the values of scientific guidance and conservation be eliminated on threat of boycott. How many players threaten to fold winning hands?

I would hope the BRTF continue to act as our “referee” and preserve the “foul” called on depriving one constituent part of our stakeholder group the tools it need to work towards reasonable compromise.

Thank you.

Greg Helms

Stakeholder, South Coast Region MLPA

[zenspearo]

More enviro RSG pushing to keep External C. They are not taking this for granted, neither should we.

***************************

Fellow stakeholders and BRTF members: (From Garth Murphy)

The new I-team recommendation on voting results for Arrays to move forward for evaluation should be rejected because the voting process was poorly designed by staff and is fatally flawed.

The use of elimination voting instead of positive voting, demanding that each voter vote 4 times instead of just once, mostly for arrays they did not support, resulted in the disenfranchisement of 29 of the RSG members who voted for External C. Though not quite half of the 64 member RSG group, this is a significant number to disenfranchise.

If a single positive vote per RSG member system had been applied to the five contesting arrays, and C had received 29 of the 64 votes it would have been at or near the top of the heap. If C had recieved just 13 votes it still would have made the cut. (the cutoff threshold number is 13 votes, 64 divided by 5.)
At 29 out of 256 votes, it appeared to trail in at last place, a flawed result of a flawed 4 votes per person system that heavily favors the majority.
*This flawed method of elimination voting is never used in elections. This was not a straw vote, ballots were handed out and filled in, with 4 choices demanded for count qualification.

Because so many of the stakeholders in Lapis groups were feeling disenfranchised by the end of the gem groups process leading up to the vote, 29 votes for C is a real possibility, but even if some of the 29 RSG members who voted for External C had voted for Lapis 1, say 12, none would have voted for Lapis 2, A or B and the other 35 votes would have been divided among those other three similar minimal fishery-industry promoted arrays. If C opposition was organized and gave 12 votes to two arrays and 11 to one, C still would have been one of the top four, and maybe at the top with 14 or 15 votes, depending on how the voting shuffled out.

What is certain is that C would never have been eliminated in a positive, one vote per member balllot.
Please do the math with various permutations. The results are the same. A, B, or Lapis 2, possibly even Lapis 1 would have been eliminated.

I believe that all 7 arrays should move forward to evaluation, and that first item of agenda at the next meeting of the RSG, after digesting the evaluations, should be a single vote per member, positive ballot for the array you want to use as a basis for the 3rd round. Then we will get a real idea of what the RSG members need and want to continue with. And no-one will be further disenfranchised by a single flawed vote.

I-team, am sorry I took so long to figure this out. I had always felt used by the vote, in that I was forced to vote for two or three arrays that were unacceptable to me, instead of the one I really identified with. This was the clue I chewed yesterday and on for a long night.

This is a critical decision for the BRTF and RSG moving forward. Please make the fair decision.

Garth Murphy, RSG member

**********************************

Hello BRTF, I-Team, and fellow RSG members, (From Jenn Feinberg)

After receiving Ken's memo today, I feel compelled to send this email and communicate my disappointment and frustration with the direction this process has taken.

On May 19th, at the beginning of Round 2, I explicitly and formally voiced a concern in plenary about the “worst-case scenario” in which none of the work groups come to common ground and develop one map. This situation would have resulted in six internal maps and three external maps. Knowing that these nine maps would then need to be winnowed to six through an elimination vote and understanding that five of these maps would likely be variations of FIC/FIN, I had serious concerns that there was no incentive for certain interest groups to compromise. Playing this scenario out, given the makeup of interests on the RSG, if each RSG member received six votes, five similar fishing maps and one map that reflected other interests on the RSG would have moved forward in Round 3.

We were all assured by Ken that maps that were very similar would NOT be forwarded to Round 3 and that any attempts to "game the system" would be thwarted. It was on this assurance that I headed into to Round 2, rolled up my sleeves, and got to the business of trying to meet the guidance provided to us by the BRTF: Meet the science guidelines. Meet DFG feasibility. Develop arrays with cross-interest support.

The results of Round 2 and the vote that followed left me dumbfounded. Not only were 2 maps, Lapis 2 and External A, essentially the same, but External B and Opal also included most of the same geographies as Lapis 2 and External A.

These replicate maps do not meet the science guidelines, some do not meet DFG feasibility, and none were developed with cross-interest support (coordination amongst recreational and commercial fishermen does not constitute cross-interest as the BRTF intended and many interests in Opal formally object that their map does not reflect their interests). Yet because the BRTF provided guidance that Round 2 should result in a total of six maps and because the merger of similar maps was not required, the RSG was required to take a vote that resulted in External Proposal C being eliminated. In addition to this vote being incredibly unfair given the imbalance in the makeup of the RSG, this vote was completely, 100% unnecessary. Had the BRTF guidance to not allow similar proposals to move forward been implemented, we would not be in our current situation.

The recommendation in Ken's memo to delete External Proposal C will force RSG members in Round 3 to compromise on a range of maps, none of which meet the science guidelines.

External Proposal C is the only map that comes close to meeting the SAT guidelines. It will provide important evaluative information from the SAT and serves as one of two "bookends" from which RSG members can choose ideas in our attempt to develop a compromised array. With External Proposal C eliminated, we no longer have a valuable range of alternatives from which to build our arrays. What we are left with is 4 maps that are basically equivalent to each other and two maps that have some cross-interest support but still need a lot of work.

After Round 1, the BRTF provided the following statement: "The BRTF recognizes that some Round 1 draft arrays developed by the SCRSG have been influenced by positional bargaining and, as a result, many MPA ideas have been replicated in multiple draft arrays and proposals: this replication results in multiple, similar proposals that do not reflect cross-interest support. Proposals that do not reflect cross-interest support will carry less weight in the MLPA Initiative process and may not carry forward to the final round of MPA proposal development."

This positional bargaining has continued in Round 2 and the results of this failure to negotiate can be seen in the outcome we have all been dealing with over the last week. If there is no incentive to come to the table, I believe many RSG members will simply not come to the table. The reason we were able to make as much progress as we did in Topaz was because we had the benefit of several fishermen who were working and negotiating in good faith. I am thankful for their genuine efforts and hope that there will be a mechanism for those of us who would like to continue working to be able to do so in a safe, fair, and balanced atmosphere.

While the results of Round 2 meet the BRTF guidance to "get to six maps," we failed to forward a range of arrays that meet the science guidelines and have cross-interest support. I fear that straw voting, failure to negotiate in good faith, and lack of enforcement of BRTF guidance will continue to prevent us from completing the job that we have all been selected to do. We need External C to move forward for evaluation in order to inform the process and provide us with the flexibility we need to find compromise.

I am respectfully requesting that the BRTF does not follow the recommendations in Ken’s memo, that they retain External Proposal C for evaluation in Round 3, and that they reduce the number of maps moving forward through merging those arrays that are blatantly similar, offer no new insight, and are essentially gaming the system.


I am disenchanted.

Jenn



--
Jenn Feinberg

[zenspearo]

I'm posting the letters to show the push on the other side, and to give you guys thoughts on what the other side is thinking so as to focus your response.

The maps look similar because SoCal is 80% sand and most of the maps, by science guideline requirements, must cluster around the 20%. There are only so many ways to draw closures around Laguna. There are only so many ways to draw closures around Point Loma. etc..

Bring this up people. Let's put some fire on this.

[Saba Slayer]

WOW!
Great info Joe.
Great insight into the "other side".
Thanks for all the hard work!
See you tomorrow!
Jim / Saba Slayer

[Tman]

Now this is my interpretation, hope I'm not too far off base.

Essentially what they are saying is, we never thought C would end up deleted and out of the picture, therefore the voting system was flawed.

Never mind the skewed data, inconclusive findings, all done in haste to expedite the process and never expecting the end result. And if it doesn't come out the way it was planned, change the rules.

Ya, that's fair...

Instead, let's use double speak and redundancy to sound more officialese.

So Director Wiseman, should C end up deleted again, would we have another voting flaw, or have you and your cohorts already planned another reason for retaining it?

I know, we are a thorn in your side, but remember, the public opinion in this whole process should be taken into consideration.

When I read these letters, one voice keeps popping up in my head...the lady who said, "We love fishing and we love fishermen, but we want our grandchildren to be able to fish."

Smoke and mirrors indeed...