Last week I received a tip from a reader regarding the story on What is Consensus Decision Making. I said I would buy someone a steak dinner if they knew what consensus decision making meant with the Mountain Accord. In true Park Rag function, someone provided the Mountain Accord Charter almost immediately.

That said, I don’t think they necessarily disagreed with the point of the article which was “when they say consensus, it probably doesn’t mean what you think it means.” This is important because what Mountain Accord asks us to do is put our faith in consensus. Our leaders tell us that there are “Exit Ramps” but the problem is that as long as Mountain Accord exists in its current form, we are subject to the decisions of a few people.

So, according to the Mountain Accord Charter, here is the decision making process:

• The Executive Board approves administrative decisions by a simple majority.
• There are then milestone approvals. The document says, “Each milestone builds on the approval of the previous milestone, culminating in a final decision on a preferred scenario at the end of Phase I. Executive Board members agree not to re-visit milestone decisions…”
• “The Executive Board will make substantive (non-administrative) decisions, including approvals at milestones, through a consensus-based process.”

Then let’s dive a little deeper into the defined consensus based decision process. I’ll cut and paste the highlights from the charter:

“A consensus-based process builds trust, encourages sharing of information, and provides an environment for collaborative problem solving. Consensus does not mean that everyone will be equally satisfied with the decision; rather, it means that the best decision was made given the agreed-upon process, stakeholders, and timeframe.”

On each issue, Executive Board members may indicate the “following levels of support”:

• Concurrence
• Concurrence with minor point of contention
• Consent to move forward with but disagree with outcome
• Waiver
• Dissent
• Indecision until more information is provided

The charter continues, “Consensus is not reached if any Board members indicate indecision or dissent.” If there is any dissent or indecision, a consensus is not reached. So, what happens then? The program manager (Laynee Jones) can perform some procedural actions (like have them write down why they dissented). Then the program manager can have the executive board perform an administrative vote, which requires a simple majority.

So, who is on that Executive board (as of the charter formation):

So for any option, you really need half of the board to vote yes. If you get 66% of the board to vote for something then you have what George Orwell Mountain Accord calls “Newspeak” “A Near Consensus Decision.”

There you have it. Thanks to an anonymous tipster I now understand the decision process. That said, I wouldn’t say I feel better. Do you think getting half of the above people to make a decision unliked by Summit County residents would be hard?

I’ll save my opinion for the next post.

h/t to the anonymous person who provided this info.

I received an anonymous tip with an email that was sent from the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance and Winter Wonderlands Alliance to the Mountain Accord. It is one of the best constructed and thought-out arguments against parts of the the Mountain Accord that I have seen. If you care about the Mountain Accord process, you should read it, as these people seem to share many of values that Summit County residents have.

The main points are:

• They are pleased to see the Mountain Accord process moving forward and appreciate the opportunity for the public to “weigh in” on the Accord.
• “We do not support an interconnection between Big Cottonwood Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon and Park City, or any combination thereof.”
• “As drafted, the Blueprint needs much improvement – it simply places too much emphasis on development over preservation of the environment and dispersed recreation.”
• “Additionally, many components put forth in this draft would bring sweeping and permanent changes – with significant indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as potential benefits – on both public and private lands, but few details exist to address their viability. Significantly more information is necessary to understand the full implications of some MA elements, and to make wise choices between Alternatives. “
• “We are not opposed to ski area development within existing boundaries or improved transit, far from it, but we are wary of how these and other related actions are packaged in the draft.”
• “Balancing recreational opportunities and preserving a healthy Wasatch are not new ideas. Conservation is the status quo in the canyons right now, supported by both regulation and the weight of public opinion. One example of this overwhelming public opinion is the fact that all parties involved with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games agreed that the development/impacts associated with holding Olympic events was not appropriate for Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. There needs to be an extremely compelling reason to veer away from that.”

I’ll stop there and encourage you to read their entire email. It even includes proposals on what they would do. Many times critics are dismissed because they don’t offer alternatives. That’s not possible here.

What I really wonder is why weren’t people like this in charge of the Mountain Accord process from the beginning. They don’t appear to be the anti-everything crowd and they have interesting ideas worth consideration. While I don’t agree with everything in their “platform”, at least its a better place to start from. Instead the process has been co-opted by … something entirely different.

If you have a little time this weekend, we’d suggest giving it a look.

Thanks to the person who provided this tip. It adds so much to the public discussion. I couldn’t do the Park Rag without so much support from the community. Thank you.