Received this notice via email. Bad that it's in Sacto, good that it's on a Saturday. Would be terrific to have off-roaders there, in person, to show them just who really does care about their sport.

Received this via email:

Dear Friends:

California State Parks and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission invite you to an important upcoming public meeting to help outline and recommend priorities for the future of California's off-highway recreation program. The meeting will also include information regarding the grant process and discuss trends likely to affect off-highway programs in the future.

The public meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday, February 21, 2004, at the Clarion Hotel, 700 - 16th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, Tel. (916) 444-8000. If you need reasonable accommodation due to a disability,
please contact Laurie Taylor at (916) 324-5801.

Through its Stakeholders Roundtable and other forums, California State Parks and its Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division have demonstrated that many positive
accomplishments can be achieved through meaningful and open dialogue.

To ensure an adequate number of handouts are available, your RSVP is requested. Please reply to Laurie Taylor by phone at (916) 324-5801 or by email at ltayl@parks.ca.gov

To assist the Commission in its work, please complete the attached three-question survey, and forward it to the address below. The survey and all advanced written input you wish to submit must be received prior to February 10, 2004, and may be mailed to:

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation CommissionCalifornia Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001

You have a voice. With your help, we are committed to developing the optimum off-highway vehicle program for California. Please plan to attend this important meeting. We value your input and your contributions on the future of
this program.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ANTHONY I. PEREZ
Anthony I. Perez, Chief
California State Parks
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division

January 27, 2004
Page Two


To assist us in the meeting, please respond to the following questions:

Future of the OHV Program in California

… What trends and/or issues do you believe are likely to impact the future of the program?

Grant allocations
… What top three priorities do you feel should be considered in support of grant allocations?

… In considering grant applications, what top three criteria do you feel should be used in allocating grant funds?

Historically, up to one-third of the OHV trust fund has been used for
facility and trail maintenance at various Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management units in California. However in the last few years, the commission
has reduced that amount to as little as one to five percent of the fund.
(ISDRA grant last year for O&M,,,over a MILLION dollars,,, this year... ZERO and part of why your now paying $90 and not $30 for a season pass)

We have set up a comment letter the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) Rapid Response
Resource Center, but please take a few minutes to write your own specific
comments on the program (the letter is designed to include your responses to
specific questions from the OHMVR's "open letter"). To use the BRC online
comment letter, please go to:

http://capwiz.com/share/issues/alert/?alertid=4974521


Come on you posters... you can bitch all day here about everything under the sun but it is now time you do SOMETHING that can actually help. Spend the 3 mins to make a difference. Deadline is the 10th. And email this to a friend too...let those in the CA commission here we want our money back!!!

Your post looks very similar to an e-mail sent to me last night by Don Amador of BRC.

Sending your letters to the Commission and a COPY to the new Governor is a step in the right direction. Better yet, there are many inexpensive flights from the LA area to Sacramento, why not attend the meeting in person?

For all the bitching about the Commission and its members from others who post on dunes forums, I suspect it's now time to put up in person what you write on the internet.

Only today and tomorrow left to do this...use the link to do it online:

http://capwiz.com/share/issues/alert/?alertid=4974521

I just a few seconds ago recieved a thank you message from Laurie Taylor for the comments I sent in.

Just hope they actually got read. The reply dosn't give me much indication one way or the other - here's the fully text:

I'm told from someone who attended this meeting that the meeting went well. As related to me, the Commission heard loud and clear that accountability from prior year(s) grants is fundamental to user support (or lack thereof) for any further grant requests by the agencies.

"Transparency" of the agency decision making process, as it relates to the monies expended from Grants is also a must.

The Commission's tone was that of agreement with our requests (above), along with the indication that they are more inclined to make Grants for Operation and Maintenance, rather than new facilities.

Commissioner Spitler was vocally in agreement with our concerns and it would appear that he and Commissioner Waldheim have struck areas of commonality and a good working relationship. Interestingly enough, it seems as if Commissioner Spitler was seen sporting a new CORVA jacket, given to him personally out of the private funds of CORVA President Ed Waldheim.

Finally, as related to me, a representative from ASA was noticeably absent. Given the amount of debate from the ASA BBS about the Commission and their decisions, it's a shame this opportunity to express the concerns of the "membership" and volunteers was missed. Perhaps they made comments in written form, but an appearance in front of the Commission emphasizes the concerns.

HMMMM ??????, What is up with that ASA ?.

Spitler's comments made you think that he is turning over a new leaf. But I'm guessing that he was just saying that so he wouldn't take so many shots this year.

Format was different than last year. No real time set aside for general public comment in front of everyone.

Pretty much a waste of time until we get that 4th vote back to the OHV side.

Jon

Well I certainly can't speak for the ASA, but as for DUNERS, who was also not represented, we wasted our time there last year and didn't have the time or resources to waste again this year.

During the last OHV leadership meeting there was a strong request for our {OHV leadership} presence at the 2/21 OHMVR meeting. But the OHV leadership (and even the BLM) responded with doubts about last year's meeting. You see, this meeting is mandated and it was very clear last year that it was only being held because it was mandated, not because it was the right thing to do.

We wanted to know what would be the difference this year that would possibly convince us to participate again. There was a brief hope that perhaps some real input would be given and received and that this meeting could become something beneficial to both sides and not just a meeting fulfilling a requirement, but when that wasn't confirmed (once again I am speaking for DUNERS here), we decided to save our resources and energy.

Perhaps the ASA had other reasons for not attending but as for DUNERS, we have precious little resources and our energy was better spent with the foreign exchange students.

Yes, change has to come to the OHMVR but the meeting on 2/21 wasn't going to cause it.

Vicki

Vickie ; could you please elaborate on your above statement regarding the exchange students and how they are more important than a meeting with the OHVMR commision. I would just like to know how that " media blitz ? " benefits the average ( or only ) duner / contributor in our fight to keep the ISDRA, the place we all know and love as the "Sandtoy capitol of the world" , from being closed down, or help in fighting the legal fight ( you know the black robe guy's ). & $$$ (Lawyers ).

I dont want or mean to disrespect your contributions to the fight to keep the dunes open or come off in a condesending tone !.( although it might seem that way ), Im just a curious duner !.

John:

I was not at the meeting, so I have to listen to those there and make some observations based upon the same. Don't you think that Commissioner Spitler has been somewhat influenced by the presence of Commissioner Waldheim?

Vicki may well have good reasons for Duners not attending the meeting. I know first hand the costs of travel to the State Capitol as I've done this trip dozens of times.

The beauty of larger or statewide organizations is they often have the resources to attend such meetings, and then help disseminate the information to the smaller, but just as important organizations.

But Vicki, don't loose hope with the Commission here, as Ed Waldheim is now, as you know, a part of the same. I'm told that the meeting had a somewhat different tone this year.

And some food for thought that was once shared with me in years past: "Utilize constant pressure, endlessly applied" to achieve our goals!

Before anyone gets all worked up because Ed and Paul are making nice, those of you who were at the DAC meeting when Spitler told everyone how he went on a buggy ride with someone and just oozed a new attitude...

Bullshit! When he stops putting his green agenda ahead of OHV interests, then maybe I will believe it.

One needs to remember though that the "greens" have the majority vote on the Commission. I see nothing wrong with building bridges and finding areas we can work to build trust with them.

The point I'm attempting to make here is that Commissioner Waldheim may be making some inroads with the Chairperson of the Commission (and perhaps-other members). If he is successful in this endeavor to sway some decisions, we may see some change in the future.

But Frankie, one thing is for certain... the agencies that request funds from the Commission MUST show transparency in the program decision making process and accountability in how the money is spent. Which, I believe is a MAJOR concern is see on dune related sites.

To me, having the Commission having similar concerns shows me a step in the right direction. Not perfect, but a good step nonetheless.

With all due respect to your position... what are you looking for as a change from the Commission? Ed has shared with me the refusal of both the US Forest Service and BLM, for the most part, of providing some very basic information as to income and expense. I'm told by Ed that the Los Padres NF has provided this information and receives many of the Grant requests it submits.

Without this kind of financial health information, I'm having a damn difficult time justifing additional Grants to the agency.

Ed, in the short time on the Commission... even in his official capacity, cannot get the agency(s) to provide this information. Perhaps the reason Frankie and you don't see a change in the direction of the Commission is because of the above.

Is it time to put pressure on the agencies to provide this information. In my opinion yes!

Just so we all understand where I'm coming from...

It is not my intent to malign Ed Waldhiem in any way. It is my intent to point out that Paul Spitler will NEVER change his position on OHV's...he hates them and he has little or no regard for those who use them. While I applaud Ed's attempt to woo other members to get them to change direction, it ain't gonna work with Spitler. The only thing that will change the way the OHMVR sees us is to acquire a pro-OHV majority commission.

And for the record, I would dearly love to be able to change that opinion.

Please please please Paul Spitler, PROVE ME WRONG.

Vicki

I know you and Frankie did not mean any harm in your posts. And to my sensitivity towards Ed, to some degree your right. All too often Ed gets bashed on sand related forums from folks who don't have a clue as to the "rest of the story".

Which brings us to the topic of the November elections... and the function of the California League of Off-Road Voters ("CLORV") could play in accomplishing a change of the Assembly and Senate - that could help with the OHV Commission majority issue.

No harm here Vicki, I look at this as a constructive exchange of views. Even though we have never met face to face, I value your (and for the matter, Frankie's) views and opinion.

Well my days of being just a lurker here are now over, I was on the DAC field trip that Frankie was talking about and Ed not only took Paul for a ride, he let him drive his buggy in the Dove Springs and Jawbone Canyon part of the trip. I have to agree with Frankie and Vicki on this one, I would not trust Paul Spitler as far as I could throw him! But I would love to see him prove me wrong.

So... let's set a goal. We need to get BLM to provide the information the OHV Commission they are requesting, especially what Commissioner Waldheim has requested, and test this opportunity.

If indeed Commissioner Spitler/Waldheim is given the information and BLM requests a reasonable grant for Operations and Maintenance this year, and we spend a bit of time to lobby the Commission for what we want - I see no reason to have this grant request denied.

But this is going to take some work. Anyone raising their hands?

Well, I would certainly be willing to put the time in but you did forget one HUGE "if".

IF a grant request is submitted for operations and maintenance and the OHMVR doesn't place unreasonable conditions prior to approving the grant request.

The last time a reasonable O&M grant request was submitted to the Commission, they tried to put some really nasty conditions on it. Like closing down "overused" areas after big weekends for instance.

That, brother, is one great big IF for me.

Vicki

Point well taken Vicki. I think that BLM El Centro might do well by working with Ed early in the process to resolve the concerns the Commission has BEFORE the same becomes unresolveable. I'll contact Ed to find out what we are facing here and report back.

Actually, I would prefer that Ed, the BLM and the OHV leaders work on this together. What I would absolutely object to would be Ed as a sole liaison between the BLM, the OHMVR and the OHV community, especially in regards to what may be acceptible compromises in order to achieve funding.

No offense is meant to Ed and I'm sure he would not feel any, but because his role has changed it would be unfair to put him in such a position. It would also be unfair to expect the OHV community to rely solely on his activities as a liaison. There are simply some things that we must take responsibility for ourselves.

Vicki

Just for the record,

While the ASA was not physically in attendance at the public OHMVR meeting Saturday the 21st--a meeting we felt was largely superficial in regards to intent--our official comments were in fact submitted for the record.

At the last moment it was decided that the best use of our limited resources and volunteers was to focus them on attending another Sacramento meeting occurring that very same weekend, dealing with the various OHMVR issues on a more root and hopefully more productive level.

Greg

It's a pleasure to have you add this information to our discussion Greg.

You speak of another meeting that happened that weekend. Would you like to share if indeed that meeting was the same date and time as the Commission meeting?

Also, what was the nature of the meeting and with whom?

Since indeed the direction of the Commission is somewhat set by the political influences of the folks who appoint the same, I'd venture to guess that that the meeting was political in nature. Without some sort of change to the Commission and thus some of the political motivation that sets the tone for the votes, I'm having difficulty understanding what could be more pressing than addressing the Commission with our views of how our funds should be spent.

Given the current make up of the California legislature, and knowing how to count votes, it doesn't seem too likely that someone, in the near future, might be appointed to the Commission that better represents our views.

But all this is supposition on my part.

The significant point here is that, from what I'm told by a person who attended the meeting, that the Commission (rightfully in my opinion) made it clear that transparency in the decision making process and accountability are tantamount to favorable decisions for agency grant requests.

The bottom line of this writing is the Green Sticker Fund is a trust fund for California’s OHV community. We have a right to have the requesting agencies to open their books to us so that the Commission may expend OUR FUNDS in a lawful, knowledgeable, and useful manner. When the President of CORVA and OHV Commissioner (Ed Waldheim) cannot receive basic financial accounting from the requesting agency, then I can see where the Commission has a difficult time granting funds for our use.

The Green Sticker Fund has a provision to SUPPLEMENT for appropriated funds from Congress on Federal lands. The Fund does not have the ability, nor should it, to become a large portion of any agency’s budget. We have a large state with many great OHV opportunities. Each of these opportunities is very important to those who use these areas.

The focus for funding the ISDRA should include a share of the Green Sticker Fund, but we need to look further. I’m told from those in the know that BLM has received a great deal of money from Congress to manage the IDSRA. More help may be on the way. It is my opinion that we need to further focus our attention on the budget passed by Congress, and how these funds were spent. I’ve been made aware that the “bean counters” within the BLM have re-allocated Congressionally appropriated funds from places such as the ISDRA, to other areas in the State of California and perhaps throughout the nation.

The ISDRA is a congressionally designated National Recreational Area. Making such a decree requires sufficient budget to manage the area as the agency plans for. We should focus on Congress to the amounts necessary to manage the ISDRA and then have the agency request from the Fund supplemental resources to fill in the gaps left from Congress.

Greg, if you are not comfortable with sharing the requested information in public, please contact me privately. You have the address.

Phantomduck, While I can see your point, to many times I have attended meetings hopeing to make a differance, only to find out that the meeting was held just to satisfy NEPA rules, and public input while receved, was largley ignorred. Due to the current makeup of the OHMVR Board many people feel that their efforts are better used in other places, as any funds from the board are likley to come with to many unacceptable strings attached.

I fully understand this very well may be the reason for some to not attend. But this meeting was different. Now the Commission has Ed Waldheim as a part of it.

How would you like to be Ed, working his butt off attempting to make a difference for this community on the Commission; and perhaps the most vocal of the ISDRA sand groups doesn't deem it necessary to make an appearance to a meeting that has direct bearing on future OHV Grants?

Written comments to these types of things are step one of a two step process. As one who has attended dozens of the meetings, I can tell you that impassioned speeches and interaction with the Commission have gotten far more done than just written comments.

The topic of this thread is "Tell the OHMVR What You Really Think". While the Commission/Division is mandated to provide this forum and some feel the meeting a waste of time, I see it differently.

Let’s take the meeting a step further. Suppose we went to the Assembly Speaker and/or the President of the Senate and discussed our differences with how Commission is voting on the issues of importance to us. Then, our concerns are brought from the elected member to his/her appointee. It would be all too easy to pull out the sign in sheet and show the absence of the group making the complaint.

Do you think the "green" community doesn't attend meetings because they don't feel they can make a difference? Of course not.

I fully understand the limited resources of any OHV group to attend all the meetings. CORVA is fortunate to have Ed Waldheim as he sets the pace in attending and contributing to meetings each year. But Ed is in the position to do so.

My point here is not to bash ASA, but to point out a missed opportunity. While some may disagree with my viewpoint, we will have to respectfully disagree and move forward.

Phantomduck, I hope that you did not take my previous statement to mean that I think going to Govmt. meetings is a waste of time because nothing could be further from the truth. What I was trying to get across was that given the results that we have gotten in the past and the distance (costs) involved some of us felt we could get "more bang for our buck" elsewhere, it is nice to hear that we may have been wrong.

Sandemon, I never took what you said that way, I believe you intentions are admirable.

I'd love nothing more that some resolution to our concerns. Some may think I'm defending past Commission actions. I'm not!

I'm composing a e-mail to Ed today to help move the thoughts here along to him and to possibly share the same with the other Commissioners. This may be a step to determine the resolve of the Commission this year.

Think about this...

Some OHV orgs have stopped attending the OHMVR meetings because of the futility of dealing with Spitler's agenda...and in the end he will attempt to use our lack of attendance to support his next lie...he reached out to the OHV communityand we weren't there!

"Duck", while I applaud your enthusiasm, as long as spitler controls the OHMVR, it will be virtually impossible for Ed to get anywhere without making concessions that will incur the wrath of the various OHV orgs, not to mention the average duner.

I think Vicki said it best, the OHV leadership needs to work with ISDRA management and Ed to resolve Commission concerns, and then have Ed carry our message to the Commission. Not a direct quote, but the way I read what she stated.

I can't see what we have to loose with this approach.

Actually, that's only kinda what I meant

I think it's unfair of us to rely solely on Ed as a liaison. I was trying to explain that because of his change in "status" it is impractical and perhaps at times even inappropriate. But for those times that he does serve as a liaison of sorts, it is still our responsibility to make sure the message is clearly passed up the food chain.

We need, all of us, to be paying attention to those that are speaking for us. What happens all too often is we say "oh she's handling that" or "I don't have to do it because he's got it under control" and that takes the responsibility from our shoulders onto theirs. That may be fine in some cases but not all. For instance not all DUNERS members can attend the meetings that I'm able to attend so they rely on my interaction at those meetings to best represent their interests.

But those same members need to be sure that I am adhering to their wishes and that the message they want me to send is coming through the same way it left their lips.

The only way to do that is to pay attention and will also mean attending some of those same meetings.

But more to the point in this thread, in the past when money has been dangled in front of the ISDRA, it has come with some very nasty strings attached. We all have the responsibility of letting those that speak for us know how we feel about those strings. I am most concerned that a message of "we need the money and don't want to pay fee demo anymore" will translate into "do whatever it takes to get money to Glamis."

Those are the things that must come out from behind closed doors and into the public's eye so that they are fully aware of what is being decided before the ink hits the paper.

Vicki

I'm sitting here reading the posts while Mickey is out gambling...

As I sit here reading what I have written, it occurs to me that pessimism runs all through my comments on this subject...and I am not a pessimistic person in any way, shape, or form. It's just that after getting kicked in the nuts one too many times when it comes to OHV issues, I am not optimistic that the next kick will not hurt like the last several did!!

Vicki, what a well thought out post. I could not agree with you more

And Frankie, I too have sore nuts with things agencies and the Commission has done to us in the past.

But I've known Ed way too many years and have seen him in action as an OHV Commissioner. Ed is a very successful business man. Accountability, like opening up the books, is a very large issue with Ed. Next time you see Ed ask him about the implementation of the "Action Log" when he was Chairperson of the Commission!

Let's make this thing happen. I'm awaiting Ed's reply to my mail.

Just want this thread active agian as there is a lot of good information
in this thread, and it's a good place for traffic that has split off from my
topic. (Glamis Grant open house?)