May 21, 2009 - Keeping the Dog at Bay

On May 12th, a group of livestock producers met with representatives from Department of Ecology to discuss water quality issues. The meeting was a follow up to letters sent to 10 local producers indicating a DOE field rep had observed indicators of poor water quality (also known as cows or sign of cows in the vicinity of a stream). Water quality data was not used, the problem was inferred from the indicators. There may be no visual indicators per DOE’s checklist on 364 days out of 365, but if the DOE field rep drives by on the 365th day, a producer may be judged to have a problem and be sent a letter for follow-up.

There are eight best management practices (BMPs) listed by DOE as appropriate responses, one being fencing creeks and the other seven addressing operational BMPs. The producer group raised good reasons why the visual indicators may not relate to actual water quality, why objective criteria should be used to tailor actions to the site, and why fencing creeks is a bad idea for most producers. Unfortunately, the DOE field rep had no way to respond other than to repeat the parameters of the current program. Monitoring management practices over time is a difficult proposition for one field rep covering a huge territory, observing a fence in place is simple. DOE’s preferred solution relies heavily on providing government grants to subsidize building fences on creeks as a clearly visible indicator that “something” has been done. The message came back clearly from producers – fences and government money with government strings attached are not solutions.

DOE did admit fencing can be a last resort, if the other seven BMPs address the visual indicators. Changing management practices may be an opportunity to improve both water quality and profitability, but it is hard to be objective about your own operation. It is even harder to listen to someone from DOE tell you “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

There is an alternative - to work with two or three other producers to give you an objective viewpoint from folks who are walking in your shoes, a kind of “value engineering” process. As an architect, I work on public projects which are required to go through value engineering. A team of architects and engineers with a fresh perspective review the design documents and prepare a Value Engineering report identifying areas of problem or potential improvement. The report provides good information to an open-minded design team on where they might fine tune their project. I’ve been on both sides of the process, and learn something every time to improve my own practice. Every operation has room for improvement. If there is enough interest, I’ll work with the Lincoln County Farm Bureau to organize an informal value engineering process for livestock producers.

If we want to make fencing a last possible option in Lincoln County, we need to be creative in implementing the other seven BMPs in a way that reinforces their value and work to establish realistic objective measurement criteria. The current letters have put 10 of our neighbors into “technical assistance mode” with DOE. There were no enforcement letters or fines (yet). While it is necessary to keep pressing DOE about the scientific parameters of their program and the principle of respect for private property, those are separate from how to handle the immediate challenge. If you saw a powerful dog approaching a toddler, you’d act first to get her out of harms way and talk to the city about a leash law at the playground later.

For those who’ve already received letters, the best choice is to call the DOE field rep for a meeting and invite our Lincoln County Conservation District folks along as advisors. Pursuing legislative and administrative change to the DOE program is a long term effort, one that groups like Lincoln County Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s, CPOW and others will continue to pursue. The immediate goal is to stay in technical assistance mode, and keep the powerful dog at bay. Building individual relationships is our best first shot at avoiding building fences.

May 16, 2009 - How's Business?

“How’s business?”

It’s probably the most common greeting between Americans, right after “How are you?” Neither question is typically meant to be answered. After all, you don’t really want to hear about every little ache and pain, we all know the polite answer is “Fine, and how are you?” The exception – when you know that your neighbor is facing serious health problems, and you really do want to know if the therapy is working. Likewise the polite answer to “How’s business” is “Great, and how about you?” This is an exceptional time, and the old, polite whitewash has been dropped. We really want to know.

I’ve noticed that ever since the 2008 election and the stock market nose dive, this question leads to self-disclosure that would have been unthinkable a year ago. RIF (Reduction in Force) has become the acronym of the year for employees and employers alike. When asking “how’s business,” I’ve heard the following recently:

1. An experienced timber company employee in the northwest who just survived a significant RIF at his company: “I’m thankful I have a job.”
   
   
2. A self-employed distributor of equipment to grocery stores: “Sales have dried up, we’ve cut hours and cut salaries to keep things going.”
   
   
3. An architect in Los Angeles: “We’ve dropped from a staff of 100 to a staff of 40, and I’m doing the work of 5 people. I almost wish I’d been RIF’ed.”
   
   
4. A self-employed specialty farmer who ships globally: “Sales were off by 40% last winter. Bad timing - we just expanded the farm so the kids could come back home and join the operation, and now we’ve had to refinance $400,000 in debt.”
   

These blunt admissions of trouble are as good an economic indicator as any professional survey. Business is struggling, and when business struggles, the country struggles. Calvin Coolidge is quoted as saying “The business of America is business.” Some consider his statement to be a sign of the overconfidence of the 1920’s, and certainly it was a reflection of the times, but that does not negate the truth behind it. Scholars still argue about the root causes and cures of the Great Depression and whether it was the war, or the New Deal or other factors that brought us out of it. One thing the history scholars agree on – the Great Depression wasn’t over until the business sector had recovered the vitality of the 1920’s.

We are not in a Great Depression, but we are experiencing a serious recession and looking for healing. A group of Congressional Republicans has recently launched a new initiative to look for those elusive solutions. The National Council for a New America (NCNA) is a forum for all citizens to share concerns, insights and solutions with a national focus, yet acknowledging that what works in one state or community won’t necessarily be the best solution for everyone, everywhere. You can read more about this new effort on Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodger’s political website at: http://www.cathyforcongress.com/SignMyPetition.aspx.

Predictably, the spitballs have already been flying on the internet from both left and right. I scanned through several screenfuls of comments on the cnn.com Political Ticker at: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-set-to-launch-rebranding-effort/ Clearly the negative voices are the loudest, and we need to be sure that this opportunity for grassroots input is not shouted down by the so-called liberal voices of “no debate” or the rigidly conservative voices of “no compromise.” The Republican Party needs to pull together to find common ground with everyone from sincerely conservative activists to conservative-leaning independents, and find the 80% of agreement Ronald Reagan pushed us for in the 1980’s.

We have to refocus our party on our core values of limited government and fiscal responsibility, values which slipped by the wayside as the deficit grew these past few years. We lost credibility, and it will take time to earn it back. There are no shortcuts. The National Council for a New America is a good start, even if it does lack a catchy acronym.

We need positive Republicans to participate in the town hall meetings and forums, making this a meaningful exercise in figuring out “how’s business.” Go to: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/WeThePeople/ and nominate your community to host a forum. Keep checking for a forum near you, and participate. Fight off cynicism and bring your most positive ideas forward to build national and party unity. We must follow the wisdom expressed in the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

(First published on Facebook at Positively Republican)

May 11, 2009 - Vikings or Polar Bears?

Polar bears are amazing animals, superficially like our familiar land based brown bears but adapted to living on ice floes and pursuing their prey through the water. Lately there’s been a lot of hand-wringing over how they are losing their familiar habitat as the seas warm and the Arctic sea ice melts. The Obama administration recently stepped back from using its authority to declare the Endangered Species Act as the appropriate tool to address climate change and its impacts on specific species, but that hasn’t stopped the handwringing. Polar bears make a cute and cuddly looking poster child for victims of climate change.

Inconveniently for global warming alarmists, the “bear population has more than doubled since the 1960’s,” according to a May 9, 2009 Associated Press report. The report cites a coming crisis based on a projected loss of Arctic sea ice, currently a key part of the polar bear’s habitat. But is it really the polar bear’s preferred habitat?

During the years 800-1200, Greenland was settled by the Vikings. The Vikings developed a thriving agricultural community on the open plains, before cooler temperatures returned with the Little Ice Age. The Vikings failed to adapt, and the settlements were abandoned. The polar bears clearly adapted quite well to the cooler temperatures and advancing sea ice. My question – what was the polar bear’s preferred habitat during the 400 years of the Medieval Warming period? It couldn’t have been the sea ice - if the ice had retreated far enough to allow European style farming in Greenland, then the conditions in the Arctic must have been different. Clearly the polar bears survived and thrived.

Polar bears should be the poster child for successful adaptation, surviving both global warming and global cooling. We can choose to fight climate change like the Vikings of Greenland or adapt to climate change like the polar bears. The polar bears were clearly more successful.

April 27, 2009 - Great Expectations

Technical writing for a construction specification is a specialized kind of writing, where the object is to:

• Describe what you want built for people with the skills and good intention to carry out the work
• Protect against problems from people with less skills or bad intentions, and
• Define the rewards for meeting expectations and the penalties for screwing up.

It’s a type of regulatory writing, establishing the laws and rules to govern a project. On the other hand, the art of essay (aka blogging) is about exposing people to a new point of view or delivering a message, often with a call to action. Since I have spent the last two weeks focused on technical writing, I had to set aside the blog for a time. I missed having an outlet for the running commentaries in my head as the Legislative session painfully wound to a close. Last night was an almost all-nighter to meet my deadline, just as the Legislature stayed in Session to the last possible moment. The difference is my deadline was for a 95% complete check set; the Legislature was assigned to hit 100% done on major issues facing the state – like setting a solid budget for the next two years. I got my work done, but the Legislature didn’t.

Our state Legislature was distracted from good governance by an excess of partisan spirit and a dearth of statesmanship. Political partisanship led the Democrats, who have solid control of the House and the Senate as well as the governorship, to take advantage. They refused to bring their Republican colleagues to the worktable to help develop a balanced budget, not just fiscally balanced but also politically and socially. Their exclusivity will deservedly come back to haunt them, as they have nobody to blame but themselves for the results. The Democrats voted to waive the rule requiring the state budget to be released 24 hours prior to the final vote, giving the minority party a chance to read and comment before voting. When the Democrats did release the operating budget, a source at the legislature reports it came out 25 minutes AFTER the 3:00 pm cut-off for amendments. The Republicans are primed to take back control in the next election cycle, the negative ads will practically write themselves.

Notice how that previous paragraph makes the legislative session sound like a game to be won or lost by one side or the other? When governance becomes gamesmanship, the loser is the people of the state of Washington. President George Washington, in his Farewell Address after his second and final term in office, warned of the dangers of political parties run amok. He noted the spirit that leads to parties is inevitable, a result of a human tendency to pull together into groups of like perspective. We naturally choose to work with people with whom we share values and concerns.

I am member of the Republican Party, active at a variety of levels, and proud of the work accomplished and grassroots connections made. If you believe in our core values of limited government and fiscal responsibility, then I urge you to join us. I encourage all citizens to seek out like-minded people of good character to work together for the good of your community and your country. However, I am keenly aware of the danger of focusing on party to the detriment of clearly weighing broader values of constitutional commitment, good character and ability to compromise that lead to statesmanship instead of gamesmanship.

President George Washington was one of the earliest to warn us of the dangers to the republic in the “spirit of party.” Revenge, dissension, seeking of personal power, jealousy, animosity, foreign influence and corruption – President Washington didn’t tiptoe around the subject. It was his letter to the future, setting forth expectations and consequences for carrying forth the life of the Republic. Read his own words, from his Farewell Address:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled or repressed; but in those of popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continued mischiefs of the spirit f party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of a popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, in force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume."

We need to go back and rediscover the specifications for the country. We were blessed with a first president who served his country with integrity and insight, eschewing kingly titles and perpetual power for the good of the nation. Re-read President Washington’s entire Farewell Address, you can find it on Wikipedia and any number of websites and books. I know it’s an old fashioned writing style, persevere and read it anyway, and heed his advice. He did absolutely the best technical writing on the subject of maintaining the republic that you’ll ever read, describing:

• What we can achieve as a people with the skills and good intention to carry out the work
• Dangers to be avoided, and
• The rewards for meeting his hopes and expectations for the republic for which he sacrificed so much.

Political parties will always be with us. They are a useful way to organize people to work on problems with a common goal. As you work with the party of your choice, make sure that you are working for the common goal of the good of the country, following in George Washington's footsteps. Expect your elected representatives to do the same, and remain vigilant lest the fire of party spirit consume us.

April 13, 2009 - Countdown to Tax Day

Budgets can be built in one of two ways – decide what you need to buy and find the money to pay for it, or decide how much you have to spend and prioritize spending within the available income. In the first kind of budgeting, you may need to get a better job, or a second job or use some other tactic to increase income that doesn’t involve buying lottery tickets. In the second kind of budgeting, you will have to determine the difference between needs (tithe, food, transport to work, shelter) and wants (toys, imported Swiss vs. Tillamook cheddar, used car vs. new, rent vs. buy a home). The 2009 budgets proposed by the President and our Governor are of the “let spending set the budget” type, and we all know how government increases income to meet a spending budget – by taking more of our income.

As we approach Tax Day, let’s take a look at the question of needs vs. wants. Think back to your first real job and your first real bills, not just paying for your own pizza and movie tickets but grown-up bills like electricity, rent and insurance. You made it through that first year, wished you had more money, but life was okay and you survived. You worked hard, and the next year got a promotion and a raise. If you were an average young American, your “budget” went up as well, meaning you spent whatever you made. If you were really average, you got a credit card or two and spent a little bit more than you made, because next week, or next month or next year you were sure you’d have more money and pay it off. There was always something more to buy. Did you need it, or want it?

Now think back just four years. In April of 2005, were you generally satisfied with the services being provided to you by the state of Washington? The budget was balanced, and income projections showed enough income to cover current commitments and produce a surplus. Instead of using the surplus to pay off debts like the skipped pension fund payments, the legislature acted like a 20 something kid with his/her first real job and good prospects for the future, and went out and committed to expanding government, adding employees and starting more programs. Priorities of government went out the window and budgeting slipped from what do we need to where can we spend.

We need to exercise restraint on our personal budgets, and ask our elected representatives to exercise that same restraint with the public purse. Don’t roll over in resignation. Send a message to Olympia and Washington D.C. by writing your representatives, attending a Tax Day Tea Party Rally, and encouraging others to join you. We still have a government by the people and for the people, but only if we, the people, will speak up.

April 8, 2009 - The Least of These

There was nothing unusual about the chance encounter in the parking lot, but something made me turn back. Panhandlers regularly ask for money in downtown Spokane, and my response is usually to smile and sadly shake my head. This man was hanging out next to the alley behind Rocky Rococo Pizza where the restaurant workers take their smoke breaks. He was smoking a cigarette. I walked by without even a smile as he said softly “Ma’am, could you spare some change? I haven’t eaten today.”

I walked towards the stairs, thinking about all I needed to get done that afternoon. I think it was guilt about not at least acknowledging him with a nod that turned me around. He had gotten almost all the way down the alley when I called out “Excuse me!” He hesitated, and I thought maybe I was off the hook, then he turned. “I won’t give you any money, but I’ll buy you a piece of pizza.” He started back and I turned to lead the way to the restaurant.

As we walked through the dining room, I could smell the nights on the street wafting from his clothes. He followed three steps behind, and said still more softly, “Just one of those pieces already boxed would be nice.”

I pointed to the display behind the counter, where the freshly cut slices rested on a warming rack, each stack neatly labeled with the type of pizza. “Which kind do you like best?” I asked.

He paused. “I can’t read,” he whispered.

My throat choked up. I cheerfully read off the choices, and he selected sausage and pepperoni, but I kept thinking about what he’d said moments before. “I can’t read.” People who should have been there for him as a child, to make sure he mastered such a basic skill, had let him down. I paid the $4.23 for his pizza and pop, and gestured to a table, bidding him to “enjoy.” He said thanks and walked quickly out the door, back to the world that was home for the homeless.

I didn’t do anything particularly magnanimous. My parking bill for the day was three times what I spent on his meal. What the whole incident reminded me of most of all is the story of the little boy and the old man walking along the seashore at low tide. There were dozens of starfish stranded on the beach, and the little boy kept stopping to pick one up and throw it back into the water. The old man told him there was no point, he couldn’t possibly throw all the starfish back into the ocean and it wouldn’t make any difference. The little boy stopped to pick up another starfish and replied, “But it will make a difference to this one.” Today I picked up one starfish, at one low tide. I wish I could have done more to break him out of his prison of illiteracy and homelessness.

This week, as we walk through the events leading to Easter Sunday and the glorious reminder of all that Jesus Christ has done for us, it is fitting for each of us to try and find our starfish. It is the least we can do as we await His triumphal return. Jesus' words are directed to us as individuals in Matthew 25: 31 to 46, saying:

“. . . Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of
the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

April 2, 2009 - Personal Community Investment

A nice young man called today and asked if he had reached the Madsen Ranch, and would I agree to participate in a university survey on barriers to small farm success. There was a bummer kid bleating in the laundry room and I needed to get on the road to a local Chamber of Commerce meeting, but I agreed to his promised 15 minute survey. My sister-in-law works for a company that contracts for surveys on natural resource issues, and I know what it means to get a willing participant on the line.

I was also curious about the questions. How survey questions are phrased and the range of responses allowed will color the results, and I wanted to see what bias I could detect. The surveyor was open to fill in the blank answers, diffusing the most glaring biases, other than to “do something.” Humans seem hard-wired to want to “do something.”

Several questions focused on marketing and distribution. We sell quite a few goats directly to local individuals who value fresh goat meat and do their own butchering. My biggest marketing problem is that I don’t speak Hmong or Burmese. As for distribution, our biggest barrier to retail markets is lack of access to USDA slaughter facilities for small carcass animals. It’s pretty ridiculous that local goat and lamb can’t compete economically with New Zealand imports.

There were a few questions about insurance, and I confirmed it was difficult to find coverage. Only one insurance company would write the kind of commercial coverage we needed for our unique custom farming operation. Insurance competiton in Washington is squelched by a system that emphasizes regulation over competition.

The last series of questions centered around transportation and delivery barriers, focusing on what kinds of equipment we used and distances traveled. Then it took an interesting turn, with a question about borrowing equipment. Yes, we do occasionally borrow equipment from neighbors or trade labor, the usual neighborly favors people do in the country. No, we don’t have any formal agreements, it’s all on a handshake. Then he asked how much time per week we spent “managing” these kinds of cooperative arrangements. The question seemed to be fishing for justification for a formal co-op, with managers and grants and a bunch of paperwork.

The neighborly system works just fine, thank you very much, and the worst thing we could do would be to institutionalize it. We operate on trust, shared values, and the natural interdependence that exists in rural communities. It works because that’s how you live in the country, but I figured he needed a more university style explanation. I asked if he’d ever heard of the concept of an emotional bank account, a metaphor developed by Stephen Covey, author of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” We don’t spend time “managing” a co-op, but we do invest time in our community, as do our neighbors. We look out for each other and lend equipment because we all have a personal investment at stake in the health and survival of our community.

I asked for a copy of the final survey results, anticipated later this summer. I hope it doesn’t become a justification to scratch that urge to “do something,” for yet another stimulus program to convert volunteering into a paid profession. That truly gets my goat, but that’s a subject for another blog!