Another scenario of conflict of interest

As stated above each of us on the Roundtable is identified with an interest--county or municiple representative, agriculture interests, recreation interests, industrial interests, water rights owners, environmental interests, etc. However, someone who represents a county may also be a major water rights owner in a ditch company.

So another possible scenario:

Joe Blow is ostensibly on the Roundtable representing agricultural interests. There is a proposal to build a small dam to facilitate water transfers to a front range city in another basin. So the Roundtable asks Joe Blow if this proposed dam presents any problems for the agricultural interests he represents.

Unknown to the other Roundtable members, Joe Blow's wife has purchased most of the land on which the dam will be built (done under her maiden name so it is not well known in the community) and this is going to be a major economic windfall for Joe and his family. Joe says the proposed dam will present no problems for the farmers in area and they are not that concerned that they don't have any storage rights in it. So the Roundtable recommends that the dam project and our IBCC rep negotiates with the city in the other basin that wants to use this dam with the understanding that it will not harm our basin.

Due to the publicity surrounding the IBCC negotiations, other farmers in the affected area make complaints to the CWCB and the press. They are angry because this dam will have negative impacts on them and they are angry because they now believe that the Arkansas Basin Roundtable sold them when recommending the dam project.

Even if the dam project is stopped, the farmers who were impacted and many others who read about this lose confidence in the Roundtable. The Roundtable loses its ability to do any negotiating or resolving of differences in the basin because many interests do not trust the Roundtable process because it doesn't even ask its members to disclose conflicts of interest.

Additionally when the Roundtable confronts Joe Blow, he rightfully says he had no obligation to inform the Roundtable of this as there was no conflict of interest disclosure requirement. Since he didn't violate any rule, the Roundtable was unable to get sufficient votes to remove Joe Blow as Roundtable member.
SeEtta Moss

Response to emails

In a recent email between subcommittee members it was said that since the Basin Roundtables were not convened to have any powers to change anything, there is no need for a conflict of interest section. I would submit that though the Basin Roundtables do not have any direct authority to change things they have significant roles in the following:
--"shall propose projects or methods for meeting" the water needs of the basin--I believe that particular duty could be significant in terms of which projects/methods move forward

--"As needed, establish Roundtable subcommittees or other mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and resolution of issues and conflicts within the basin In order to resolve issues and conflicts it is essential for us to know who is representing which interests.

--And our Roundtable not only picks our IBCC representatives, who are charged with negotiating interbasin compacts, but removing them if they do not properly represent the interests of this basin.

--Additionally, if we don't think the Roundtable is going to have any meaningful weight in decisions why are we all spending all this time in Roundtable and subcommittee meetings?

In regard to the issue raised that each of us is here to represent an interest: that is my point, members of the Roundtable or their immediate family may have interests that are not those they are identified with. I will give another example of a possible conflict of interest in the next posting. And frankly, I cannot fathom why putting a conflict of interest section in our Bylaws is being construed as something negative.
SeEtta Moss

More on proposed Conflict of Interest in Bylaws

It is my belief that a good conflict of interest section would not only not impair the ability of our Roundtable to work cooperatively in a consensus building mode, but I think it would improve it. I think that people are more able to work cooperatively when there is some assurance that they will not be coopted by some stealth interests of which they are unaware.

It might be helpful if I gave an example, albeit one that is totally made up. So let's say that I, the person that this Roundtable elected as the environmental representative supported the sale of all the water in the Lowline Ditch to the new suburb of Aurora-Limon, a growing metropolitan city of 1/2 million residents. Though concerns had been noted about the environmental impacts of drying up all the agricultural fields supported by the Lowline Ditch, I discounted these and claimed that there would be no harm to the environment. Some Roundtables members decided that if the environmental rep saw no environmental problem they would vote to have our IBCC reps work on an inter-basin agreement to sell all the water from the Lowline Ditch to Limon.

Unknown to Roundtable members, my mother held a significant number of shares in the Lowline Ditch and stood to make a profit of a million dollars on this sale. (for the record, my mother has been deceased for over 15 years, never lived in Colo and never ownen any water shares) And it turns out that drying up all the ag fields was indeed terrible for the environment and ultimately caused a loss of topsoils and contributed to dust storms caused by the continuing droughts.

So what do you think that would do to the trust and cooperative work of the Roundtable? I think it would destroy it. Though clearly an exaggerated tale, this is the kind of conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed and for which the party needs to remove themselves from voting if not from making recommendations too.
SeEtta

Post from Gary Barber

Posted at request of Gary Barber:

"SeEtta: I read your posting. The issue looks entirely different to me, it
seems you are trying to take the "wet out of the ocean." By that I mean that
everyone in the room has an "interest," hence the requirement by the statute
that the Roundtable include out of basin water right's holders as nonvoting
members. As we get to know each other, the interests will become apparent.
Whatever consensus we achieve needs to be arrived at by having everyone one in
the
room, not restricting the debate. Otherwise, we are headed for what Thomas
Jefferson deemed "the tyranny of the majority."

I perceive conflict of interest to be an issue of monetary compensation
derived from a potential proposed project. My understanding of the Roundtable
process is to bring our narrow interests directly into conflict in a crucible
that
produces a solution that serves the basin. To achieve that end, all voices
need to stay in the same room. GB"

Need a confllict of interest section in Bylaws

One of the major issues for organizations, both governmental and even non-profits, in recent years is violations of conflict of interest. And this is related to the erosion of public confidence. I believe that the Arkansas Basin Roundtable needs a conflict of interest section in our Bylaws and recommend the following that I have modified from "Water for the People", a part of the American Waterworks Association:

>>The Arkansas Basin Roundtable realizes that a conflict of interest may exist when the interests or concerns of any officer, or member, or said person's immediate family, or any party, group, or organization to which said person has allegiance, may be seen as competing with the interests or concerns of this organization.

Any possible conflict of interest shall be disclosed to the Roundtable by the person concerned. When any such conflict of interest is relevant to a matter requiring action by the Roundtable, the interested person shall not vote on the matter, and shall retire from the room in which the Roundtable (or its committee) is meeting and shall not participate in the final deliberation or decision regarding the matter under consideration. This shall also apply to actions that may be taken by those elected as Interbasin Roundtable Compact Committee representatives.<<
SeEtta Moss

January 6 Roundtable meeting

The participants at the January Roundtable meeting held a revote on the second Interbasin representative and Jeris Danielson was elected again. The other Interbasin rep is Alan Hamel.

The Roundtable decided to hold regularly scheduled meetings on the second Wednesday of each month, meeting monthly at this time. The meetings will now start at 12:30 and end at 3:00. They will still be held at the Pueblo Convention Center for at least the next several meetings. All Roundtable meetings are open to the public.
SeEtta Moss

Roundtable meeting on Monday, January 9

The next Arkansas Basin Roundtable meeting will be this Monday, January 9. We will meet as scheduled fro 1:00 to 3:30 pm at the Convention Center in Pueblo.

Member of the public are invited to attend. All Arkansas Basin Roundtable meetings are public meetings. This blog should be more active now that the Roundtable meetings are resuming after the holidays.
SeEtta Moss

Interbasin Representatives election problem

The Bylaws Subcommittee agreed to conduct the election of the Arkansas Basin interbasin representatives in a stepwise fashion and presented this to the December Roundtable meeting. The full Roundtable voted to accept this election rule. During the subsequent election of interbasin representatives, we followed the procedure in electing Alan Hamel on the 1st vote. We also followed the rule in the 2nd vote by eliminating one of the candidates who failed to get sufficient votes. Unfortunately we subsequently failed to follow the rule in determining that Jeris Danielson was the second interbasin representative.

At the Bylaws Subcommittee meeting yesterday, the consensus of our group agreed that due to this failure to follow the election rules in the Bylaws it was necessary to conduct a revote the election of the second interbasin representative. Since Alan Hamel's election as the 1st interbasin representative elected did follow the election rule, it is unnecessary to revote his position. And since the 2nd vote was conducted in accordance the rule, the revote will be done beginning at the 3rd vote.

The Bylaws Subcommittee members agreed to contact the other members who were candidates for an interbasin representative position to apprise them of the revote and notify them that they have the opportunity for 5 minute presentation to the Roundtable in order to refresh everyone about each candidate's qualifications for the position.

The Bylaws Subcommittee apologies for this failure to follow the rules our own committee agreed to and want to make clear that it was accidental. As new groups of individuals coming together to develop bylaws and take on a new process, we accept that are subject to making errors. We will be more vigilant in the future.
SeEtta Moss, Bylaws Subcommittee member