(MLPA) Straw votes my foot--we got the video - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

zenspearo · 06-03-2009, 01:47 PM

Thanks to some excellent detective work by fishermen and spearos, we got the footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHrBEuUym_M

Look at the tape from 1:28 to 1:55.

That's the instruction given to our RSGs. They clearly said only six proposals would go forward.

"As you've heard, we've been asked to please bring back no more than six proposals. The two gem groups that converge, the Opal and Topaz group, will go forward to round 2 SAT and BRTF evaluations. The three external proposals and the two Lapis group proposals will go into a pool of five that NEEDS to be winnowed to four."

It makes me ill that through I-team gaming the system, seven proposals are now in front of the BRTF, and we have to go and fight to try to get the one that was voted out, External Proposal C, removed. It should have never gotten to this point!

Also, see Ken Wiseman's letter below after the votes come out. What's the deal with "acting on the vote would have led to the elimination of two draft proposals."

Wading through the usual double-speak, he's saying six equals seven. Unless you want me to remove two, in which case six equals five. WTF?

Best I-team money can buy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear SCRSG members,

As promised, we are transmitting the results of the May 21, 2009 vote regarding SCRSG and external proposals to move forward for Round 2 evaluations.

During last week's meeting both the Opal and Topaz work groups created a single draft MPA proposal and, together with the other proposals, we were facing a total of seven. In an effort to meet the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force's request for no more than six Round 2 proposals, we took a vote; in the voting results shown below this message, three of the five draft proposals clearly stand out while the remaining two (External B and External C) are much less favored.

Everyone worked hard last week to respond to the task force guidance to achieve no more than six draft proposals. In our effort to achieve that goal, many of you contend there was not sufficient opportunity to contribute additional, valid, cross-interest ideas, and that our promise to avoid duplicative proposals has fallen short. I have consulted with Chair Benninghoven on how best to respond to these concerns.

We have decided that all seven proposals will move forward for analysis and review as part of the Round 2 evaluation process. This decision was made in the interest of maintaining the maximum confidence in an open and inclusive process, maximizing the amount of information available from the various evaluations, and acknowledging that with the significant stratification of the votes, acting on the vote would have led to the elimination of two draft proposals.

Moving forward with all seven draft proposals is contrary to what staff indicated would be the result of the vote. However, an important goal of the MLPA Initiative is to ensure that all voices in the process are heard and given consideration; doing so both respects the intent of the MLPA and works toward the best cross-interest solution for all Californians. We believe moving all seven draft proposals forward for analysis will help achieve this goal.

We expect to receive additional guidance regarding the Round 3 proposal development process when the task force receives the results of the Round 2 evaluations in July. We are working to design a structure for the Round 3 process to ensure that all SCRSG members have the opportunity to contribute to the development of an MPA proposal that they can support.

Any questions or concerns you may have should be directed to me at ken.wiseman@resources.ca.gov

I look forward to continuing our work together-

Ken Wiseman

Straw Vote Tally from May 21, 2009 SCRSG Meeting

(Note: All 64 SCRSG members participated in the voting)

Opal and Topaz reached a unified proposal and will automatically move forward for evaluation.

Lapis 1 = 63
Lapis 2 = 61
External A = 64
External B = 39
External C = 29

Billy V · 06-04-2009, 03:41 AM

Print this MEMO out from your computer if you need some refresher notes while speaking to shifty Ken...

06-03-2009, 01:47 PM	#1
zenspearo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 167	(MLPA) Straw votes my foot--we got the video Thanks to some excellent detective work by fishermen and spearos, we got the footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHrBEuUym_M Look at the tape from 1:28 to 1:55. That's the instruction given to our RSGs. They clearly said only six proposals would go forward. "As you've heard, we've been asked to please bring back no more than six proposals. The two gem groups that converge, the Opal and Topaz group, will go forward to round 2 SAT and BRTF evaluations. The three external proposals and the two Lapis group proposals will go into a pool of five that NEEDS to be winnowed to four." It makes me ill that through I-team gaming the system, seven proposals are now in front of the BRTF, and we have to go and fight to try to get the one that was voted out, External Proposal C, removed. It should have never gotten to this point! Also, see Ken Wiseman's letter below after the votes come out. What's the deal with "acting on the vote would have led to the elimination of two draft proposals." Wading through the usual double-speak, he's saying six equals seven. Unless you want me to remove two, in which case six equals five. WTF? Best I-team money can buy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SCRSG members, As promised, we are transmitting the results of the May 21, 2009 vote regarding SCRSG and external proposals to move forward for Round 2 evaluations. During last week's meeting both the Opal and Topaz work groups created a single draft MPA proposal and, together with the other proposals, we were facing a total of seven. In an effort to meet the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force's request for no more than six Round 2 proposals, we took a vote; in the voting results shown below this message, three of the five draft proposals clearly stand out while the remaining two (External B and External C) are much less favored. Everyone worked hard last week to respond to the task force guidance to achieve no more than six draft proposals. In our effort to achieve that goal, many of you contend there was not sufficient opportunity to contribute additional, valid, cross-interest ideas, and that our promise to avoid duplicative proposals has fallen short. I have consulted with Chair Benninghoven on how best to respond to these concerns. We have decided that all seven proposals will move forward for analysis and review as part of the Round 2 evaluation process. This decision was made in the interest of maintaining the maximum confidence in an open and inclusive process, maximizing the amount of information available from the various evaluations, and acknowledging that with the significant stratification of the votes, acting on the vote would have led to the elimination of two draft proposals. Moving forward with all seven draft proposals is contrary to what staff indicated would be the result of the vote. However, an important goal of the MLPA Initiative is to ensure that all voices in the process are heard and given consideration; doing so both respects the intent of the MLPA and works toward the best cross-interest solution for all Californians. We believe moving all seven draft proposals forward for analysis will help achieve this goal. We expect to receive additional guidance regarding the Round 3 proposal development process when the task force receives the results of the Round 2 evaluations in July. We are working to design a structure for the Round 3 process to ensure that all SCRSG members have the opportunity to contribute to the development of an MPA proposal that they can support. Any questions or concerns you may have should be directed to me at ken.wiseman@resources.ca.gov I look forward to continuing our work together- Ken Wiseman Straw Vote Tally from May 21, 2009 SCRSG Meeting (Note: All 64 SCRSG members participated in the voting) Opal and Topaz reached a unified proposal and will automatically move forward for evaluation. Lapis 1 = 63 Lapis 2 = 61 External A = 64 External B = 39 External C = 29 __________________ A spearo, but we are in this MLPA mess together

06-04-2009, 03:41 AM	#2
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	Print this MEMO out from your computer if you need some refresher notes while speaking to shifty Ken...