Ark Roundtable 3-8-06 meeting notice

Please note new location

Meeting Notice


The seventh meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable formed under the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act will be held in Pueblo, Colorado.



Date: Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Time: 12:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension, Southern Region
Pueblo Occhiato University Center
2200 Bonforte Boulevard, LW-331
Pueblo, Colorado

Directions: Coming from the North or South

At Interstate 25 Exit Ramp 101 (Intersection of I-25 and US Highway 50), take Colorado 47 East.

On Colorado 47, travel East for approximately 3 miles to the Troy Avenue Exit. You will see the University on the left as you approach the exit. (Go past the Bonforte Blvd. Exit and through the underpass, Troy is the next exit you will come to.)

Exit, get in the Left Lane. You will come to a left hand turn (the road will veer to the left, follow this). Get in the right lane and make a right at the intersection. You will see a large building with a metal roof and a red awning, this is the gymnasium. Go past the gym to North 2 or 3 parking lots, located west of the gym. Park in any of the white striped parking spaces, campus parking will not be ticketing in these lots the day of the meeting.

Enter the University Center on the South side of the building, or the East doors directly into the East Ballroom.


All roundtable meetings are open and the public is encouraged to attend.

What is "our" interest

I always appreciate the efforts Gary puts into the Roundtable but I have a very different perception of what constitutes "our" interests. That which is in the best interest of one family may well be not in the interest of another family--I think that is why we are in the bad shape we are in. And that is also why I think it is essential that persons be made responsible to declare their interests. Again, as I said in above examples, we might have someone who ostensibly is representing the interests of the group they were elected/appointed to represent, but they promote a project that is opposite those known interests because they have some personal financial interest that is not known--this may well be in the interest of their family as they may make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the project, but it is not something that is in the interest of their group or this basin.

So I must disagree with Gary's propositions. Although he makes a case for assuming everyone has pure motives to promote what is best for the basin, that is clearly unrealistic. I cannot understand why anyone who is concerned for the interests of the basin as a whole would have any objections to a rule that says people are responsible to disclose other interests. If no one ends up with these other interests, then there would be no need for disclosure and no issue. I think that finding out later that people hid their personal interests would be what sabotages this process.
SeEtta

Disclosure-my recommended modification

Following is my recommended modification (changed text in italics) to the disclosure clause recommended by Gary Barber:

Section 3. Disclosure of Interests. The validity of consensus is derived from the collective understanding of each Member concerning both the issue and the perspective of fellow Members on that issue. It is realized that Members may have interests other than those for which they have been appointed or elected to the Roundtable, and that these may influence how the Member stands and presents positions on issues. In the interest of transparency required for effective decision making, it is the responsibility of each Member to disclose any substantive interest outside of the identified interest for which the Member is serving on the Roundtable that the Member, or the immediate members of the Member's family, has/have in matters that are the subject in Policy Decisions


SeEtta

Disclosure

Although I believe that if the Roundtables become effective in Colorado water decisions, as they are so invisioned, that such statutorily derived definitions of "conflict of interest" will be essential to the integrity of decision making, for the sake of compromise I can live with a Bylaws section on disclosure. However, if disclosure will only be "recommended" I cannot reconcile why we would also not use the same language (recommend instead of require) for attendance at Roundtable meetings.

The only reason that attendance is crucial to the Roundtables is related to their becoming effective in Colorado water decisions. If disclosure is sufficiently unimportant that it can be "recommended" instead of "required", then so should attendance at Roundtable meetins. On the other hand if we believe that attendance at meetings is sufficiently crucial to an "effective" Roundtable process, then so should disclosure and it should be "required" not merely "recommended".

SeEtta