Which is it now? You anti-harvest guys have been crowing about an Attorney General's representative being at the meeting with the dignitaries from Forks and assuring everyone that the process was legal and proper.
Now it's Chairman Roehl doing all the assuring.
Todd said:Chair Roehl may not agree with WSR (he doesn't), but he met with Nedra Reed and the Forks Chamber of Commerce when they went to Olympia and he assured them that everything was done aboveboard.
But, like everything else about this subject, just because someone doesn't like it in no way, shape, or form means that it was illegal. He may not think that they should have done it, but he in no uncertain terms told Mayor Reed that they could.
.
Until you can document what you claim Roehl said it is a rumor at best and a fabrication at worst. It is also becoming even more confusing as to who might have said what at the meeting with the good people of Forks considering the following factual quotations from the transcript of the Feb 6 meeting.
Chairman Roehl said:"One of the comments that Commissioner Ozment make earlier was that this didn't come through the normal planning process"
Referring to Ozements Statement:"So that's just one thought, and have to again, talk about the public process and , think, the disservice that we're doing to the public, the disservice we're doing the staff, and ultimately the disservice that we're going to be doing on ourselves. I can tell you right now that this whole discussion in the course of this afternoon, to me, has transcended from the policy issues to an issue of principle. And I am extremely upset with where this is going."
and Van Gytenbeek's statement:"I wouldn't have felt good about asking if there was a proper legal way to bring it forward"
.
It appears that Roehl, Ozement and Van Gytenbeek all agreed that the proposed moratorium was improper and/or illegal and a disservice to the public. Even Pelly agreed that it was improper...
Commissioner Pelly said:"So while it did not go through the normal public process with the regulations this year, I think it has been on the hearts and minds of all the fishermen this last year, whether or not it was an actual proposal"
.
So even you Todd can now see that Chairman Roehl and at least three other Commissioners believed that the proposal was probably illegal, and that it violated the public process?
Even you Todd can see that the Commission did not act in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.
Why would they worry about doing the public a disservice while at the same time feeling as though they are increasing public confidence in what they are doing?
It becomes obvious that the Commission did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act when they misused their rulemaking capacity.
Previous Topic
Index
