This morning City Council member Liza Simpson was on KPCW again saying that we need to continue to sit at the table so we can see what Mountain Accord really is. All I could think of was, “what if Mountain Accord was a restaurant in Park City?”. Would this fly? Would they get a second… third… fourth chance? You be the judge.

Let’s say someone opened up a new Mexican Restaurant in town. They publicize the hell out of it. They built it at a prominent and beloved place to locals. They make promises that this is going to change the way Parkites look at food. They’ve held focus groups and brought in celebrity chefs to make the perfect menu. They’ve gotten the Park Record to write 5 stories about how the restaurant is truly remarkable.

You decide to go. When you arrive in the parking lot you look up and see the 60 foot tall building. A look of confusion runs across your face as the mountains you love are no longer visible. You ask why it’s so tall and the manager says, “we have to have cliff divers.”

The restaurant opens its doors and the locals flood in to try the hot spot. Well they try to. Once they get inside they find it’s a 2 hour wait. The restaurant had also ran advertisements in Salt Lake and offered free busing to anyone in Utah who wanted to come try the food. They had to maximize the crowd.

Once you are seated you look at the menu. Tacos cost $30 and burritos are $60. When you ask why it cost so much, the server says that you need to look at the ingredients. Parkites are saving the indigenous American Wagyu cattle by only using real Japanese Wagyu cattle. The server tells you, “you are paying a little more to save those American Wagyu” but they must be saved. “Do you want the American Wagyu to die?”

After ordering, you wait. 20 minutes. 30 minutes. 40 minutes. You ask your server, “what’s taking so long?”. The server explains that like Chile en Nogada, that every dish is a slow process. Meanwhile, the cliff divers have started and water is everywhere. You’re soaked.

You finally get your meal and it is OK. It’s worse than Billy Blancos but some parts are better than Del Taco.

You and your partner decide it’s time to leave and ask for the check. They forgot to tell you that margaritas are $25 too. $300 later, you head for the door. Or should I say the gift shop that you have to exit through. You notice a t-shirt that exclaims “try our 15 locations throughout the Salt Lake Valley.” So much for being unique and about Park City.

You finally get to your car and head home vowing that you will never come back and that it was one of the worst restaurant experiences you have ever had. You wonder how something so promising could have turned out so bad. You drift off to sleep and one word comes to mind. GREED.

The next week, you see an ad and accompanying story in the Park Record about 2 for 1’s at the restaurant and how you should come back. The ad says that you have to come back and see what the restaurant is becoming … its great. The article tells you that you just don’t understand the restaurant and you just don’t understand what they are trying to do.You are lying to yourself. You are an idiot. This restaurant is the best thing ever. Just come back a few more times and sit at the table. Come back and see what the restaurant really is.

You stare back into that newspaper article and say, “I don’t need to come back and sit at the table. I already know what it is.”

You know that the faster that restaurant closes and gets torn down, the faster a better restaurant will come in that actually meets the needs of its customers… AND NOT ITS OWNERS.

As you probably have gathered, I don’t like the Mountain Accord. I like the idea of protecting our wilderness and watersheds. However, I think the Mountain Accord is a transportation plan foisted upon us, and has provided little specifics on any environmental gain it would provide to the residents of Summit County or Utah.

I’ve avoided the local politics of it all, as I think the issue itself should have the focus. Yet, I am starting to think that time has passed. Today I read a Park Record Guest Editorial from city council person Liza Simpson. She attacked a local person for writing an editorial to the Park Record on the Mountain Accord. Throughout her editorial she states facts that the individual said, offers her opinion, and then says that the individual really knows that she is right.

What are the statements that she disputes from the individual’s editorial?

1. She says that nothing about the Mountain Accord has been fast. She describes it as moving at almost a glacier’s pace.
2. She says that the Mountain Accord could be the biggest agreement ever to protect wildlife and watershed that this state has ever seen.
3. She states that “In my experience, the Executive Team and the consultants have been very willing to hear diverse viewpoints. I have never gotten the whiff from anyone involved that there was a predetermined outcome.

So, is that true?

1. Has the Mountain Accord been moving at a glacier’s pace? Umm … they started in January 2014 and tried to get public input by the end of the year, in order to start a federal process shortly after, for a plan that would completely alter both the front and back of the Wasatch? Summit County couldn’t even get animal control ordinances changed in that amount of time. Yes, that’s fast.
2. Is this the biggest environment plan the state has ever seen? I really have no idea on that. It seems likely that the debate over U.S. Forest Service land was probably been bigger but I’m not sure. Yet, the real question is where are the specifics on the watersheds and wildlife in the Mountain Accord plan? There are specifics on the train company that will transport people up little cottonwood. What greater percentage of the “watershed” are we saving? How much purer is it? How much longer will it last? How many animals will likely be saved? Which ones? Just give me a ballpark.
3. Was there a pre-determined outcome for the Mountain Accord? Look back to the meeting notes from the October 31st meeting where a County Council member said that he was told that the transportation committee members should vote for Options A or D that had been presented. Is that a predetermined outcome? You decide.

Yet, who am I to tell you how to feel about the Mountain Accord? Unlike Ms. Simpson, with the individual she referenced in her editorial, I don’t presume to know what you know or feel.

What I do know is that if you are against the Mountain Accord, you have an option. You can vote Ms Simpson and Andy Beerman, who also seems to be a staunch supporter of the Accord, out of office in November. They will tell you that they just want to study the concept more. I’ll tell you that the Mountain Accord has little if any potential positive impact on Park City. What are they going to study… whether UTA will agree to build a light rail around Park City, if we’ll allow a tunnel or two? That sounds like a pact with the governor’s office of economic development the Devil.

I suggested this to a prominent member of the community a few days ago. He said, “yeah, but will anyone run against them?”. He has a good point but I think all it would take is for someone to run on a simple anti-Mountain Accord campaign. The candidate would be against the tunnel and therefore against Mountain Accord as it stands. They would paint the picture that Andy Beerman and Liza Simpson are for the tunnel… well … because they seem to want to continue with the Mountain Accord as it.

If Mr. Beerman and Ms. Simpson want the Mountain Accord to continue and are willing to risk a tunnel being forced on us, that’s fine. That said, citizens do have a right to take matters into their own hands… and that is at the ballot box in November. Do you like what the Mountain Accord could do for Park City? Then these two sound like good choices to continue that process. Don’t like the Mountain Accord? This could be a reason to vote for someone else.

Here are some potential sign ideas for November:

In a previous article, I outlined that it only takes a simple majority of the Mountain Accord Executive Board to achieve a consensus vote for action. I thought it may be fun to run through some scenarios on how different people may vote on something like a tunnel from Brighton to PCMR (if the tunnel continues to be part of the Accord after public comments).

Of course this is all just guessing (and a little bit of fun). I have no idea how someone would really vote, but hopefully this will demonstrate what it would take to shut down a tunnel. If you are one of these people and I have your vote pegged wrong, let me know.

My Most Likely Scenario: Andy Beerman and Chris Robinson listen to their constituents. Environmental folks and US Forest vote against plan with a tunnel (with exception of water dept). All State and Federal vote for it.  Towns at base of Cottonwood Canyons vote for it. Alta Mayor votes for it because he has stated that it is likely transportation is going to be coming through Alta so they need to prepare for it.

Outcome: Near Consensus… Tunnel is included

Ski Industry Defection Just like above but Vail decides that it doesn’t want tunnel. They push Nathan Rafferty to oppose the tunnel. Outdoor industry follows.

Outcome: Near Consensus… Tunnel is included

Half of Cities Say No: Just like above but half the cities, like Salt Lake, Cottonwood Heights, and Alta decide a tunnel isn’t good.

Outcome: Majority… Tunnel is included

All Cities and Counties Say No: Just like above but all the cities and counties decide there should be no tunnel. That’s not likely but that’s not even enough to stop a tunnel.

Outcome: Majority… Tunnel is included

Effectively in order to prevent something like a tunnel, if it came to a vote of the executive board, is that our local politicians would need to be against it, all environmental groups would need to be against it, half the cities/counties in the Wasatch Front would need to be against it, and then we’d need someone from the state or federal government (legislature, UDOT, UTA, etc.) to stick a fork in it.

Maybe you have better info and can come up with a scenario where a tunnel wouldn’t pass. However, given that a consensus is really a simple majority, it’s hard for me to come up with a way a tunnel between Brighton and PCMR could be prevented if the powers that be really wanted it.

Let me know where I’m wrong.

Note: I also did not take into account the new GOED representative on the board, because they also wanted to add an “environmental” person to balance it. However, I don’t know who that is or if they’ve been added. So, I added neither.

Here’s the spreadsheet if you want to play along at home.

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.