One of the gross misnomers put forth by critics is the assertion that the public was not adequately included in the process. Considering the number of public meetings that were held and the vast amount of discussion that went into the project, complaints about a lack of public input are straw man arguments.There was no "public inclusion" that got beyond the nearest dumpster. None.
That there were "public meetings" of course, cannot be denied. I attended a few of them myself... but then, it became clear that nothing said or written at those meetings was going to make ANY difference... it became a matter of "why bother?"
And that's the problem here. CRC Scammers like Jayne doggedly insist that there was "public input."
But when I ask them: "So... this 'public input' you talk about. Can you show anything, anywhere, where that 'input' made any difference?"
Of course not.
Jayne continues on in his revisionist vein by ignoring the CRC Memo where efforts to eliminate any impacts from public input were set into policy.
Some excerpts from the memo:
The approval of the locally preferred alternative by the PSC would trigger individual agency public hearings. Each elected official body (Board of Directors, Commission, City Council, and so on) would take action, presumably to endorse the locally preferred alternative recommended by the PSC. The PSC members would be entrusted to make the other decisions on behalf of their fellow elected officials with no need for public hearings or individual agency endorsements.And:
At each decision point, the PDT would disseminate a briefing packet ten days in advance of the meeting containing the following information:
• The PDT’s recommendationAnd:
• The Task Force recommendation
• A summary of public comment
• A summary of agency comment. I am assuming the concurrence points (formal or informal) of the joint regulatory review group would precede the PSC decision points, but this bears more thought and discussion with Jeff and Heather. It seems risky to me to have the PSC decide something, only to discover that the joint agency group disagrees or wants a different wording of the document.
I assume that each PSC member would be briefed in advance of the decision meetings by senior staff of their organizations. Senior staff is responsible for providing requested information and responding to questions. It is expected that each of the PSC decision meetings would result in a decision with no need for extended deliberations in future meetings. This approach would require extensive coordination among PDT members prior to the meetings.
The decision meetings would be open to the public, but only minimum legal notices would be provided and no display advertising would be placed. We would not encourage public participation. The Task Force chairs would be expected to attend and respond to PSC questions concerning the Task Force recommendations. Task Force members would be made award of the meetings. Meeting notes would be prepared and posted on the website.And:
Non-decision meetings should be treated as opportunities for the PSC members to advise the PDT on key issues. No “official” decisions should be made at the meetings. No public notice would be provided and Task Force participation would not be sought. Meeting notes would be prepared but not posted on the website (the same as RPG and working group meeting notes).See, that's the thing. Is it even possible Jayne was unaware of the efforts the CRC Scammers used to do everything they could to AVOID meaningful public input? Is it even on the table that Jayne hasn't yet figured out that these meetings were ONLY for show and had nothing to do with actually making any changes in the plan?
Maybe he should review his boss's column on the subject, a few days later, wherein even Lefty acknowledged that the CRC was screwing us on that "public input" bullshit.
This was POLICY. Excerpted from Lefty's column on the issue:
When should the public be involved in a public project? Early and often. There is no appropriate time to obstruct the people's participation in the people's work.That basic principle either escaped the understanding of Columbia River Crossing officials in 2005, or they intentionally circumvented it.I get that CRC Scammers make the claim, over and over and over again that there WAS "public input" at "public meetings."
Well, that whack job running Korea, Kim Jung Il has "public meetings" as well. How much "input" is HE taking?
So, when the CRC Scammers insist on "misrepresenting" or revising what really happened... that's when their credibility on any other issue crumbles.
For Jayne, who seems to cling to the idea that the CRC was, apparently, a group project of kumbya where everyone had buy-in instead of a project of lies, distortions and ignoring the people of this county to refer to anyone else's efforts as "fairy dust" and such a plan showing a "tenuous grip on reality?"
I dunno, Greg... you either lied in your column today... or you just flat out reinforced the increasingly obvious conclusion that you've got no fricking clue what the hell you're babbling about.