I have a correction to make and an announcement to make...
While looking into Assembly Bill 2666 and how it got past the OHVMR stakeholders without our knowing it, etc., we got the distinct impression that the duning community has been pretty much left in the dark for some time. To make matters worse, we were misinformed when we were told that Keith Rosewitz, an ASA board member, was the representative for the duning community as a whole.
I owe Keith an apology because we have since learned that is just not true. While Keith is the stakeholder representative for the American Sand Association and its members, he is not the representative for the duning or off-road community as a whole. As I am not an ASA member, I had no standing to complain that Keith had not kept me informed.
But that still left the duning community in general without representation. Well, at least until this afternoon.
As of today, I have been placed on the OHV Stakeholders Roundtable. I will represent the California dune areas (Imperial Sand Dunes, Oceano Dunes and Dumont Dunes), and of course DUNERS. Friends of Oceano Dunes and Friends of Dumont Dunes have given their blessings and I'm pleased as heck to accept the nomination.
My first official stakeholder's meeting is next week in Sacramento and I'm really excited about it.
It looks like I'll even get a chance to meet the people behind AB2666 to discuss that legislation first hand.
Oh, and I'm sure there will be plenty of other things to talk about... lots of interesting folks in the stakeholders group. Like people from the Sierra Club, Bluewater Network, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation… should be loads of fun.
Vicki
Full Version: New Ohmvr Stakeholder Representative
THUMP!!!
The sound of my jaw hitting the floor...
Unfricking believable!!!
Congratulations...I think!!
Those suckers won't know what hit them...
The sound of my jaw hitting the floor...
Unfricking believable!!!
Congratulations...I think!!
Those suckers won't know what hit them...
Good for you Vicki!! Give em heck!!
Good for us bad for them!
Way to go Vicki !!! Go kick some fargin arses !
Thank you thank you thank you!
I'm so excited about this... it's been kinda in the works for a while now, finally getting down to the nitty gritty in the last week. I've been dying to say something but didn't want to upset the applecart too soon.
In Sacramento they know me for what I am, know DUNERS for what we are, and are expecting nothing less than we're going to give, which is the best part of this whole thing.
Hopefully this move is a sign of things-a-changing.
I'll certainly do my best
Vicki
I'm so excited about this... it's been kinda in the works for a while now, finally getting down to the nitty gritty in the last week. I've been dying to say something but didn't want to upset the applecart too soon.
In Sacramento they know me for what I am, know DUNERS for what we are, and are expecting nothing less than we're going to give, which is the best part of this whole thing.
Hopefully this move is a sign of things-a-changing.
I'll certainly do my best
Vicki
Congrats Vicki, like I said Let's not give up on the OHMVR just yet.
This user fee deal isn't over till it's over
This user fee deal isn't over till it's over
Congrats Vicki, we ALL know you will SPEAK UP... 
Just curious,,, did you replace someone or was this an empty seat on the 50 member Stakeholders Roundtable?
From what I read so far on this subject of the Roundtable and why it was formed to begin with, your going to be a pawn in a chess game...
so be careful what your looking at and signing,,, your now going to be accountable to us... but I know you will ask the right questions...
Just curious,,, did you replace someone or was this an empty seat on the 50 member Stakeholders Roundtable?
From what I read so far on this subject of the Roundtable and why it was formed to begin with, your going to be a pawn in a chess game...
so be careful what your looking at and signing,,, your now going to be accountable to us... but I know you will ask the right questions...
| QUOTE (Sanduners @ May 13 2004, 04:10 AM) |
| Congrats Vicki, we ALL know you will SPEAK UP... Just curious,,, did you replace someone or was this an empty seat on the 50 member Stakeholders Roundtable? From what I read so far on this subject of the Roundtable and why it was formed to begin with, your going to be a pawn in a chess game... so be careful what your looking at and signing,,, your now going to be accountable to us... but I know you will ask the right questions... |
From what I understand I'm not replacing anyone... several seats were added and the duning representative was one of them.
What you've read so far has been conjecture and opinion, which is fine, but I prefer to reserve my opinion until I can base it on fact. If, in fact, the stakeholders group is truly just a "clearing house" for administration, I can always withdraw my position.
But I really don't think that will be necessary. I do know that it is recognized by the higher ups that there has been some deviation from the original intent of the roundtable; perhaps my placement on there is a step in the direction of bringing it back.
I will not be anyone's pawn, that is for certain.
And Jim, while as the duning and DUNERS representative I certainly expect to be held accountable, ASA members can and should still hold their very own representative accountable. Maybe together we can all make a difference.
Vicki
I think ALL our representatives should be held accountable for their actions. I don’t think that as a member of many different organizations and as a long time duner that any one person is more or less accountable to me. Just because I’m a member of the ASA does not make me not a dune user. As the representative for dune users you will also be representing the vast majority of ASA members just as the other OHV representative, that happens to be a board member of the ASA, also represents the dune users. I don’t think that anyone has been appointed to this Roundtable to represent any one organization but rather to represent the overall constituency of OHV users. These representatives should also be looking at the big picture as to what is good for all motorized recreation throughout the state.
Good luck in your new position as a representative for all OHV users throughout the state.
Good luck in your new position as a representative for all OHV users throughout the state.
I have to echo Doc's thoughts here. While technically a representative is from a certain group, they must remember that their decisions have far reaching effects on the OHV community as a whole. The vast majority of our sport is not aligned with any group. The challenge OHV leaders have is to demonstrate to these un-aligned folks and existing membership that being a member allows a more collective voice to be heard.
Congratulations Vicki, I'm sooo happy for you!
Next week will likely be a learning week. But you are very aware of my concerns with AB 2666, especially with regard to Section 20 amending CVC 38020. While there has been significant behind the scenes discussions between some of the OHV decision makers and myself, I'm still not comfortable with parts of this legislation. Hopefully you can share my concerns. I'll forward a summary via e-mail.
Congratulations Vicki, I'm sooo happy for you!
Next week will likely be a learning week. But you are very aware of my concerns with AB 2666, especially with regard to Section 20 amending CVC 38020. While there has been significant behind the scenes discussions between some of the OHV decision makers and myself, I'm still not comfortable with parts of this legislation. Hopefully you can share my concerns. I'll forward a summary via e-mail.
CONGRTAS VICKI, I HAVE NEVER MET YOU BUT IF I SEE YOUR NAME ON A POST I DO MY BEST TO READ IT, YOU (AND OTHERS) ARE GREAT FOR OUR CAUSE, THANK YOU.
Thank you everyone... I hardly slept last night because I'm so excited about this.
Doc and Duck, you're right, as the duning representative I am accountable across the board... and that's fine and dandy.
Although it was explained to me that each "organizational" representative (i.e., CORVA, Sierra Club, ASA) is on the roundtable to represent that particular organization's interests, I absolutely agree that all of the representatives need to think outside that box. When Ed speaks he should be considering not only the effect his words will have on CORVA members, but on the OHV community as a whole.
I can hardly wait to get in and start working!
As for my representation, DUNERS has always shared an excellent relationship with Friends of Dumont and Friends of Oceano and I will continue to rely (very) heavily on the expertise from those organizations in matters that pertain to those areas.
Communication, once again, will be the key in the success of all of our goals.
Vicki
Doc and Duck, you're right, as the duning representative I am accountable across the board... and that's fine and dandy.
Although it was explained to me that each "organizational" representative (i.e., CORVA, Sierra Club, ASA) is on the roundtable to represent that particular organization's interests, I absolutely agree that all of the representatives need to think outside that box. When Ed speaks he should be considering not only the effect his words will have on CORVA members, but on the OHV community as a whole.
I can hardly wait to get in and start working!
As for my representation, DUNERS has always shared an excellent relationship with Friends of Dumont and Friends of Oceano and I will continue to rely (very) heavily on the expertise from those organizations in matters that pertain to those areas.
Communication, once again, will be the key in the success of all of our goals.
Vicki
SailAway, there is no better person in da whole world than you for this position. A HUMUNGIFIED CONGRATULATIONS FROM THE SLAPSTER
Vicki, or course I echo everyones congrats on your appointment to the roundtable. Of course I also knew about it from the beginning and faught to keep quiet.
What I find interesting here, and of course welcome the difference, on this board your reminded that YOU will be representing ALL duners as well as DUNERS. You are reminded that you will be held to account for your actions. Thats awsome, as you should be accountable. Even ASA members are reminding you of this. Its great.
On the other board, excuses are being made for why THIER representitive is ignoring request for information. This from ASA leaders, past and present.
Then again, if he had been doing his job, you never would have felt the fire inside to do the job youself. Unlike yourself, I am an ASA member, therefore I did have a rep on the roundtable, I just couldnt get info from him. Now I have two members on the roundtable, Im sure I will get all the info I could use. My guess is now even ASA members will be able to get information...you wont hide it will you?
So my congrats to you go hand in hand with my thanks to him. His failure caused your success.
What I find interesting here, and of course welcome the difference, on this board your reminded that YOU will be representing ALL duners as well as DUNERS. You are reminded that you will be held to account for your actions. Thats awsome, as you should be accountable. Even ASA members are reminding you of this. Its great.
On the other board, excuses are being made for why THIER representitive is ignoring request for information. This from ASA leaders, past and present.
Then again, if he had been doing his job, you never would have felt the fire inside to do the job youself. Unlike yourself, I am an ASA member, therefore I did have a rep on the roundtable, I just couldnt get info from him. Now I have two members on the roundtable, Im sure I will get all the info I could use. My guess is now even ASA members will be able to get information...you wont hide it will you?
So my congrats to you go hand in hand with my thanks to him. His failure caused your success.
| QUOTE (SailAway @ May 12 2004, 05:04 PM) |
| To make matters worse, we were misinformed when we were told that Keith Rosewitz, an ASA board member, was the representative for the duning community as a whole. I owe Keith an apology because we have since learned that is just not true. While Keith is the stakeholder representative for the American Sand Association and its members, he is not the representative for the duning or off-road community as a whole. As I am not an ASA member, I had no standing to complain that Keith had not kept me informed. But that still left the duning community in general without representation. |
I am confused...
Why the seeming double standard for some and not others? Or am I reading this wrong?
It doesn't much matter, one way or another... I like the standard being set and although I wish it was across the board, it's nice to finally see people "watching their leaders" like we've been saying for years hehehe
It's time to get something done and keep the community involved while it's happening.
Piece of cake
Vicki
It's time to get something done and keep the community involved while it's happening.
Piece of cake
Vicki
Hopefully your presence will change the status quo for the sand community. 
| QUOTE (JET @ May 16 2004, 06:32 PM) |
| Hopefully your presence will change the status quo for the sand community. |
I'm happy to say that it already has...
The meeting this week has certain items on the agenda that were placed there because we started kicking up the dust.
It shows me that they are very concerned with what we think and that we have a strong influence in the California Off Highway Motor Vehicle world.
Should be quite a lively meeting.
Vicki
| QUOTE (tom simrak @ May 15 2004, 09:08 AM) |
| Now I have two members on the roundtable, Im sure I will get all the info I could use. |
Absolutely. Before accepting the appointment I was a little worried because there has been such a lack of information that I thought maybe it was some sort of Roundtable requirement. But after reading the orientation paperwork I received when I was appointed to the stakeholders group (everyone gets it), it's very clear what my responsibilities are...
| QUOTE |
| COMMUNICATION Minutes of a meeting will be provided to Members as soon as possible after the meeting. Additionally, Members are encouraged to provide briefings on Roundtable activities to their organizations. |
So the results and even the process have been open. No need for secrecy there.
If that wasn't enough, there's also this...
| QUOTE |
| Implementation of agreements made by the Roundtable will require the cooperation of groups and organizations that the Roundtable Members represent. It is essential that Members make a commitment to maintain communication within their own organizations. |
Since I represent both DUNERS and the California sand areas, my communication requirements go beyond just my front door (and that's just fine with me).
There's also something else I found interesting... Members can give varying degrees of support on the issues raised to the Roundtable, ranging from "can't stand it and won't support it" to "love it and will support it." So it's not an all or nothing situation. In fact:
| QUOTE |
| It is understood that Members may not always be able to commit their agency/organization to a particular conclusion; however, Members will operate and represent their organizations in good faith and contributing the best available information. Members are not required to commit to a position on any item of legislation, "standing aside" is permissible. |
The more I read the more excited I am to be part of this process and even more excited that the duning communities are now truly part of this process.
Vicki
Congrats on your appointment, Vicki. I hope you do a good job. I believe you will try very hard.
I don't see anyone being held to a different standard, rather, if some people are calling for some members of the roundtable to be held to a particular standard and they aren't being met, than the new member should be held to the standard. The bar isn't being raised at all.
If Vicki is a "leader" and is constantly saying we should question our leaders, what's different?
Some people like some "leaders" and some people don't. Some "leaders" will always be defended by their cheerleaders, while the same "leader" will always have their detractors.
Nothing new.
And so it goes. . . .
I don't see anyone being held to a different standard, rather, if some people are calling for some members of the roundtable to be held to a particular standard and they aren't being met, than the new member should be held to the standard. The bar isn't being raised at all.
If Vicki is a "leader" and is constantly saying we should question our leaders, what's different?
Some people like some "leaders" and some people don't. Some "leaders" will always be defended by their cheerleaders, while the same "leader" will always have their detractors.
Nothing new.
And so it goes. . . .
| QUOTE (Washroad @ May 17 2004, 07:01 AM) |
| I don't see anyone being held to a different standard, rather, if some people are calling for some members of the roundtable to be held to a particular standard and they aren't being met, than the new member should be held to the standard. The bar isn't being raised at all. |
Of course not, and that's okay too. A son should always defend his momma no matter what and that's all you're doing with your organization. Commendable.
But your organization is not being attacked, so you can stand down if you want to.
A board member of your organization is not even being attacked, so again you can stand down if you want to.
Like it or not:
1. There has been a sand organization representative on the Roundtable for what, over a year now? And there has been no information from that sand organization representative. When that fact is pointed out, that sand organization representative is defended or the situation is ignored. Sad fact is, there are several OHV representatives on the Roundtable and the same information blockage has been in place.
2. There is a new representative that has been appointed to represent those beyond that particular sand organization and that representative has vowed to keep the communication flowing. Now, although no public demand has ever been made of the veteran Representative(s), the new representative is being publicly reminded of the duties of the appointment.
So what? Nobody's asking for a defense of any veteran Representative. The situation is what it is and past is past. It's time to move on, and that's what we need to do.
Nobody is asking you to hold your Representative to a higher standard. You don't have to raise your bar unless you want to.
My bar has been raised and I'm glad for it.
Vicki
Stand down? Hmmm. I wasn't in "attack" mode at all. I thought I was pretty diplomatic in what I said.
Sure, the ASA rep was attacked, not directly here on this forum, but here
http://www.hostboard.com/duners/ubbthreads...=5&o=&fpart=all
and a rather cheap shot at that. I know what is going on with this rep and can understand completely why he is doing things the way he is presently. Life gets in the way sometimes, ya know? It's happened to all of us from time to time.
I'm not defending or attacking here. I was explaining what I thought. As I said, I don't think there is a double-standard and don't think it would be right if there was. Same standard for all. No problem.
I do not belong to "your" organization, but my congrats and hopes that you do a good job were sincere. There wasn't any need to defend against my post.
Sure, the ASA rep was attacked, not directly here on this forum, but here
http://www.hostboard.com/duners/ubbthreads...=5&o=&fpart=all
and a rather cheap shot at that. I know what is going on with this rep and can understand completely why he is doing things the way he is presently. Life gets in the way sometimes, ya know? It's happened to all of us from time to time.
I'm not defending or attacking here. I was explaining what I thought. As I said, I don't think there is a double-standard and don't think it would be right if there was. Same standard for all. No problem.
I do not belong to "your" organization, but my congrats and hopes that you do a good job were sincere. There wasn't any need to defend against my post.
| QUOTE (Washroad @ May 17 2004, 07:50 AM) |
| I do not belong to "your" organization, but my congrats and hopes that you do a good job were sincere. There wasn't any need to defend against my post. |
Thank you Brian, and thanks for the clarification.
Postings on the DUNERS message board may be worded differently, but that's just semantics. There is a concern over the lack of information, not just from "your" representative but from the OHV representatives in general.
Attack or not, believing the silence has been justified or not, there is no disputing the end result and that's all anyone is really concerned with, particularly in not repeating history.
Let's move forward, shall we?
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| Let's move forward, shall we? |
I'm for that.
| QUOTE (The Oldtimer @ May 12 2004, 05:17 PM) |
| THUMP!!! The sound of my jaw hitting the floor... Unfricking believable!!! Congratulations...I think!! Those suckers won't know what hit them... |
I was thinking the same thing.
You go girl
| QUOTE |
| Sure, the ASA rep was attacked, not directly here on this forum, but here and a rather cheap shot at that. I know what is going on with this rep and can understand completely why he is doing things the way he is presently. Life gets in the way sometimes, ya know? It's happened to all of us from time to time. |
I believe this quote was directed at me and Im OK with that. I stand by my comments. I do understand that life gets in the way. I can live with that. I can even accept that.
What I cant accept, wont accept is the responses I got when I asked simple questions about the roundtable process. I was told if I had questions, I need to e-mail them. Sorry, thats a cop-out.
When I asked my questions to Keith, not of Keith or anyone on the roundtable, but of the process, Keith would have responded with I'm really busy can I get back to you, or any response, I would have accepted that. What I got was a response from someone who had nothing to do with my question directing me to e-mail MY representitive. Basicly, its ok to ask questions via e-mail, but not publicly. I WILL NOT accept that from MY DUNERs rep and I certainly wont accept it from MY ASA rep.
Am I going to raise or lower the bar for the DUNERs rep vrs the ASA rep? Absolulty not. I will absolutly hold Vicki as accountable for lack of information as I would any of MY reps. I would certainly hope everyone would. But on the same note, I hope those making excuses for others are as undertanding should Vicki bobble.
Now, unless anyone has any questions....lets move on with business...
Jeez, Tom.
The rest of us already moved.
The rest of us already moved.
| QUOTE (Robbie @ May 17 2004, 10:26 AM) | ||
I was thinking the same thing. You go girl |
Thanks Robbie
And I will go... on Thursday to be exact
hehehe
Vicki
| QUOTE (SailAway @ May 17 2004, 03:59 PM) |
| And I will go... on Thursday to be exact hehehe Vicki |
Are you going to be in Sacramento this Thursday? Where & when?
| QUOTE (Crowdog @ May 17 2004, 08:53 PM) | ||
Are you going to be in Sacramento this Thursday? Where & when? |
Yes indeedy, the meeting is from 9:00 to 4:00.
I'll be arriving at Sacto airport at 8:00 and taking a cab from there to the meeting... may have time for a breakfast if you're up that early
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| I know what is going on with this rep and can understand completely why he is doing things the way he is presently. Life gets in the way sometimes, ya know? It's happened to all of us from time to time. |
For whatever reason, the job of diseminating the information wasn't done properly.
I know some other people who were in positions of responsibility who for whatever reason couldn't carry out the task they volunteered to do. They admitted that fact and stepped down to let someone else who had the time to do it.
If criticism for not carrying out an important function is an attack, then too bad. Don't take a spotlite position if you can't handle it.
Like it or not, the information flow was piss-poor at best. If personal matters are the reason, no hard feelings, bye; Now get someone else in there who's personal life or career isn't in the way and can get the task done.
If Vicki doesn't get it done, then she most certainly will be criticised. Why should anyone else be immune to that?
| QUOTE (Washroad @ May 17 2004, 03:45 PM) |
| Jeez, Tom. The rest of us already moved. |
What do mean "the rest of us", white man?
| QUOTE (SailAway @ May 17 2004, 09:12 PM) | ||||
Yes indeedy, the meeting is from 9:00 to 4:00. I'll be arriving at Sacto airport at 8:00 and taking a cab from there to the meeting... may have time for a breakfast if you're up that early Vicki |
Let me see what I can do. I'll let you know.
Jeff,
Yes, you're quite correct as usual.
My attempts to explain have been interpreted as attacks and defenses when they are neither.
OK, by now eveyone knows Keith doesn't read these boards, nor does Jim McGarvie, yet if prompted will sometimes respond. Sometimes, not always.
Keith and Jim both gave their reasons for the way they voted. Apparently it wasn't good enough for some. Well, just because something isn't satisfying to all doesn't mean it is done incorrectly.
I also know that Keith has always responded to emails and phone calls. I have never had an ASA BOD member turn down my phone calls or fail to respond to an email. Most people also know that Keith has worked long and hard for our cause for many years, and will continue to do so.
On the ASA board, Jim pointed out that Vicki and others knew about this bill back in March, maybe before that. The very first post about it on the ASA board was April 2. That was the date that I first became aware of it. Maybe something should have been brought up earlier so that people could raise their concerns about it.
I'm not looking to lay blame here, just that vilifying someone doesn't do any good. I'm truly surprised that all members of the stakeholders haven't been critcized over this. Why only one rep instead of them all?
For that matter, maybe something should be done about the way the whole stakeholder process is done. Maybe make it a "requirement" that things are brought to the public all the time.
Anyway, I know that Vicki will try to do a good job and I sincerely hope she does. You know that me complementing Vicki cost me a bicuspid!
I, personally, don't think anyone should be held to a higher or different standard. That's not right or fair.
So, now that we've beat up this dead horse again, I hope for a better future for the stakeholders. I hope there's improvement and increased communication. I know there are changes coming and think that's great!
Yes, you're quite correct as usual.
My attempts to explain have been interpreted as attacks and defenses when they are neither.
OK, by now eveyone knows Keith doesn't read these boards, nor does Jim McGarvie, yet if prompted will sometimes respond. Sometimes, not always.
Keith and Jim both gave their reasons for the way they voted. Apparently it wasn't good enough for some. Well, just because something isn't satisfying to all doesn't mean it is done incorrectly.
I also know that Keith has always responded to emails and phone calls. I have never had an ASA BOD member turn down my phone calls or fail to respond to an email. Most people also know that Keith has worked long and hard for our cause for many years, and will continue to do so.
On the ASA board, Jim pointed out that Vicki and others knew about this bill back in March, maybe before that. The very first post about it on the ASA board was April 2. That was the date that I first became aware of it. Maybe something should have been brought up earlier so that people could raise their concerns about it.
I'm not looking to lay blame here, just that vilifying someone doesn't do any good. I'm truly surprised that all members of the stakeholders haven't been critcized over this. Why only one rep instead of them all?
For that matter, maybe something should be done about the way the whole stakeholder process is done. Maybe make it a "requirement" that things are brought to the public all the time.
Anyway, I know that Vicki will try to do a good job and I sincerely hope she does. You know that me complementing Vicki cost me a bicuspid!
I, personally, don't think anyone should be held to a higher or different standard. That's not right or fair.
So, now that we've beat up this dead horse again, I hope for a better future for the stakeholders. I hope there's improvement and increased communication. I know there are changes coming and think that's great!
| QUOTE |
| What do mean "the rest of us", white man? |
Why oh why must I continue to respond to these things?????
| QUOTE |
| My attempts to explain have been interpreted as attacks and defenses when they are neither. |
You dont need to explain, your not the one who is on the roundtable.
| QUOTE |
| Keith and Jim both gave their reasons for the way they voted |
Perhaps I missed it, could you tell me where Keith explained his voting? Also keep in mind, I NEVER questioned his vote. In the beginning, I simply asked him to explain how the Roundtable process works. I NEVER questioned him or his actions.
| QUOTE |
| I'm truly surprised that all members of the stakeholders haven't been critcized over this. |
Frankly, Keith is/was our only rep on the roundtable. Perhaps other members were giving information to those who they represent. If I was a member of CORVA, I certainly would have been asking my CORVA rep, but Im not so I have no right to question them.
| QUOTE |
| The very first post about it on the ASA board was April 2. |
I may be slightly off on this but you are partaily correct, it may have been posted on the second, But when questions were raised about it, to Keith as they should have been, it wasnt until the 23rd that ANY responses were offered. Thats 21 days in my book.
| QUOTE |
| Maybe make it a "requirement" that things are brought to the public all the time. |
It allready is
"COMMUNICATION
Minutes of a meeting will be provided to Members as soon as possible after the meeting. Additionally, Members are encouraged to provide briefings on Roundtable activities to their organizations."
And
"Implementation of agreements made by the Roundtable will require the cooperation of groups and organizations that the Roundtable Members represent. It is essential that Members make a commitment to maintain communication within their own organizations."
| QUOTE |
| I, personally, don't think anyone should be held to a higher or different standard. That's not right or fair. |
NOBODY will be held to a higher standard than anyone else. We should and will expect the same from OUR new representitive.
From ASA board
| QUOTE |
| As you know I have been on the Stakeholders Roundtable only since early 2003. Many of the items before the roundtable require historical and institutional knowledge of the OHMVR division and program and its issues. With that in mind the division assigns a mentor to all new members. My mentor is Jim McGarvie of SDORC. Jim has been a valuable resource for me when confronted with the issues and procedures. I mention the need for historical knowledge of the issues because of the concern shown on this forum about AB 2666. AB 2666 would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in existing law. True, there is major heartburn felt by many over the terms restoration and rehabilitation. But AB 2666 is not what brought these terms to us. These terms were brought to us by prior legislation and definition before I was a member of the Roundtable. AB 2666 provides consistency across regulations and laws. This is not to say that I am comfortable on how the terms will be interpreted. There are good things and there are not so good things about most legislation. The Stakeholders Roundtable had ample review and input on AB2666. After much discussion, debate and haggling all OHV representatives supported this bill. I supported this bill for several reasons; the “in lieu of” funds for the counties are a benefit. The increased penalties for OHV transgressions by those that are not good stewards of the land, the consistency provided across the various regs and laws, the emphasis the division is placing on noise standards etc. Go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html to find the current status of the bill. But it is way too late in the process for the Stakeholders to change its consensus. But if any have opposition to the bill they have the right to express it to the Division and their Legislators. I believe the Stakeholders Roundtable is influential but it is merely an advisory body. Neither the Division nor the Legislature is bound by its consensus. Keith _________________ |
From same thread
| QUOTE |
| Some frequenters of this forum apparently think that all off-roaders monitor this BBS on a regular basis, and that a lack of response herein is tantamount to intentional disregard. I do not regularly monitor this - or any other - BBS, and am here only because Guy Chrest and Keith Rosewitz invited my atttention to this discussion. I am a charter member of the infamous Stakeholder Roundtable, representing SDORC, but I want to make it clear that I am not a designated spokesperson for or apologist of Stakeholders. The following expresses my opinions only, based upon my understanding of AB 2666 and the Stakeholder involvement therein. I do not intend to get into extended debate on this subject, nor do I intend to monitor this forum on a regular basis, so please don't misinterpret a lack of response on my part to be an indication of ignoring the issue or lack of respect. I may check back occasionally and attempt to answer reasonable questions, or feel free to e-mail me for an off-line discussion. The Off-Road Business Association (ORBA) paid an attorney to review SB 2666 and make comments thereon. He identified a few concerns, most of which I feel are minor, and some of those due to a less than complete understanding of the related codes and the background. Overall he was very pleased to see that we had managed to keep some of the more onerous provisions from the new bill. After reading his comments, Pete Conaty recommended to his clients that they support the bill. From an initial scan of this debate I think I have identified a few key concerns, foremost of which is probably the use of the words "rehabilitation" vs. "restoration." As others have pointed out, this change is primarily one of semantics, making all sections of the code consistent with each other. I don't believe this changes any policies or regulations. Many people have opined that "restoration" means "to permanently close." I would like to point out that such is not the case. Restoration is used ONLY on trails that have ALREADY been permanently closed by legal means. They are trails on which it is ALREADY illegal to operate a motor vehicle. Most of these trails are "volunteer" routes which were created by OHV's operating where they were not legally allowed. AB 2666 does not, in and of itself, close any trails or areas not already closed. Restoration merely restores those trails to their original appearance. Rehabilitation can and does occur in conjunction with legal trails that remain open, or are temporarily closed for rehabilitation and subsequently reopened, and simply repairs damage to those trails and surrounding area. Concern has also been expressed regarding the proposed "change" to CVC 14601. That section currently (pre-2666) reads: "14601. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked…" That section already applies to any motor vehicle, including an OHV. The proposed addition would simply clarify that fact, for the benefit of better understanding on the part of the off-roader and easier prosecution on the part of law enforcement. I don't know about you, but I - and all the other members of the Stakeholders - don't have a problem with the philosophy behind this section. If an operator has demonstrated the kind of irresponsibility that cost him/her his/her driver's license, I for one don't want him/her operating an OHV on public property. Addressing the concern that Guy expressed, I do not see this as a step in the direction of requiring a driver's license to operate an OHV. This is a separate issue, for a specific purpose. If and when that suggestion is ever made you can be sure that I would not agree, and I doubt the other OHV members of the Stakeholders group would either. Another concern is the amendment to CVC 38020 which provides that riding a "red sticker" vehicle in violation of the seasons is an infraction of the codes. Vicki's use of the ellipses ('…') in her paragraph two of her discussion of this section unfortunately - and, I'm sure, unintentionally - leaves out a very important word: "riding." The entire proposed section reads as follows: 38020. Except as otherwise provided in this division, no person shall operate, transport, or leave standing any off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification under this code which is not registered under the provisions of Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000), unless it is identified under the provisions of this chapter. A violation of this section is an infraction. Riding in violation of seasons established by Section 2412(f) and 2415 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations constitutes a violation of this section. This section shall not apply to the operation, transportation, or leaving standing of an off-highway vehicle pursuant to a valid special permit. The bill would add the sentence in italics. I think it is plain from this that the infraction applies only to riding in violation of the seasons, and that Vicki's scenarios should not be a concern. It is not expected that every member of the general public - whether off-roader or environmentalist - will like every feature of this bill. That is the nature of representation, whether on a group like Stakeholders or in the government. And what others have said is certainly true: while Stakeholders are finished with SB 2666, anyone else can certainly oppose the bill or try to get it amended if they so desire. In general, let me try to put this bill - and the Stakeholders Roundtable itself - into perspective. It is difficult to describe in a few words what we members have gone through for the past four years. When Dave Widell was appointed Deputy Director of the OHMVR Division, he inherited a real bag of worms. The Division had been sued by the environmentalists, and considering the Democratic majority in the legislature there was a very real possibility that the entire program might be shut down. Now some of you who only off-road in the ISDRA might say, "so what?" And I can understand that, considering how little good the OHV program is doing the ISDRA these days. But keep in mind that is only because of the current green majority of the OHMVR Commission, and that the program is still providing a great deal of benefit to off-roaders in other parts of the state. In order to attempt to secure the long-term survivability of the program, Dave formed the Stakeholders Roundtable. The basic premise is that if representatives of all the varied interest groups could agree on a few key issues, the program might be able to continue. The first major issue was that the program was due to "Sunset" (expire) in, I think it was, 2003. After getting to know and - at least to a point - trust one another, everyone agreed to a bill that extended the sunset to 2007. Ultimately, the OHV community would like to see a bill that would eliminate the "Sunset" provision altogether and make the program permanent. This is the longest-running program to have such a "Sunset" provision. At least some of the environmental representatives on the Stakeholders are still opposed to doing away with the Sunset. But progress on this and other issues favorable to off-roaders cannot occur without trust and credibility, and off-roaders do not gain credibility by opposing laws that are reasonable. Most of us are not in favor of more laws, more law enforcement or anything of the kind. But the OHV members of the Stakeholders faced up to the reality that 90% of the problems faced by off-roaders today is because of the perception of our sport by the public, and for the most part we have a negative reputation due to the thoughtless and in many cases illegal acts of a minority of our group. How many miles of trails and acres of open areas have been lost, directly or indirectly, due to off-roaders violating wilderness, riding with excessively loud exhaust systems, trespassing onto private property, riding while intoxicated, etc.? We came to the conclusion early on that if we were going to salvage the OHV program in California we were going to have to become more credible, and one does not gain credibility with the general public by arguing against reasonable, logical laws. I understand that this philosophy constitutes a compromise, and I understand also that some of you are unwilling to accept compromise. I submit that, given the current makeup of the OHMVR Commission and, more importantly, the California legislature, compromise is essential to survival. Were the Republicans in power in Sacramento we might not be having this discussion. Finally, Guy, I followed your suggestion and researched the "Delphi Technique." Now it is possible that one symptom of having been "Delphied" is not knowing that you have been "Delphied," but after reading a few articles on the subject I really don't think that is what is going on here. We don't have a facilitator at each table. We don't have a "ringer" in each work group. Our facilitators do not become "agitators" or "devil's advocates." They do not "deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear 'sensible,' while making opposing views appear ridiculous." I think we are participants in a legitimate, problem-solving, consensus-building procedure that can well have positive outcomes for the OHV community. Again, the above represents only my opinion. Your mileage may vary. _________________ Best, Jim McGarvie |
This should explain the "why" of why they voted the way they did.
As far as them not communicating it to us, I don't have an answer, but like I've said before, Keith always responds to phone calls and emails. I don't know why that is unacceptable to you but apparently it is.
Tom Simrak said
| QUOTE |
| Why oh why must I continue to respond to these things????? |
Well, ya got me. I thought the horse was already dead.
So, who do ya think will get in the last word on this?
heheh...
how about if I put the "Wo" in word, and you put the "rd" in? Then we can agree to disagree on our expectations of our leaders.
WO
how about if I put the "Wo" in word, and you put the "rd" in? Then we can agree to disagree on our expectations of our leaders.
WO
rd 
While you're at it, please fix your signature.
It says "Member "od".
While you're at it, please fix your signature.
It says "Member "od".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.