BLM's closed meeting stance fosters mistrust

Posted 2/23/10

When meetings concern public land issues, it's hard to make an argument for why citizens should be barred from such meetings.

Yet over the last few months, that is exactly what U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials have been doing — …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

BLM's closed meeting stance fosters mistrust

Posted

When meetings concern public land issues, it's hard to make an argument for why citizens should be barred from such meetings.Yet over the last few months, that is exactly what U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials have been doing — trying to argue why they need to meet behind closed doors to discuss revision of a resource management plan.Secrecy and lack of public access have concerned various interest groups, from the Park County Commission to the Greater Yellowstone Coalition to the Meeteetse Conservation District. Despite requests from the commissioners and environmentalists to open the meetings, BLM officials have maintained their closed-meeting position.The bureau's concern is that residents will only get snippets of information at meetings — not the full picture — and therefore misunderstand discussion and where it's leading.Yet, in an attempt to prevent misunderstanding, BLM officials are in danger of creating mistrust.A Wyoming Outdoors Council representative, Nathan Maxon, said he's already seeing it. One bentonite industry worker told Maxon that he is concerned about the plan after hearing a commissioner say it may be bad for industry. Of course, without knowing the specifics, he likely fears the worst.In order to trust the government's handling of public lands, citizens need to be able to listen to discussion concerning their land. Opening the meetings would help Big Horn Basin residents gauge the situation for themselves.That's what many interest groups want.For commissioners, they feel the public needs to see how environmentally-oriented the plan may be. For environmentalists, they believe the public needs to see how commissioners and others are seeking to make the plan industry-friendly.With doors closed and information limited, citizens are unable to make their own assessments.While we appreciate the opposition commissioners and others have voiced, at this point, it seems it may be too little, too late.A BLM representative made the point last week that the bureau doesn't want to change horses midstream. Still, the BLM's reluctance to allow public access at meetings concerning the public's land is unacceptable. In a democracy, citizens have a right to be involved with discussion involving their land. What is the harm if the BLM lets the public know what is happening during the revision process? Excuses from the bureau have fallen short.

When meetings concern public land issues, it's hard to make an argument for why citizens should be barred from such meetings.

Yet over the last few months, that is exactly what U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials have been doing — trying to argue why they need to meet behind closed doors to discuss revision of a resource management plan.

Secrecy and lack of public access have concerned various interest groups, from the Park County Commission to the Greater Yellowstone Coalition to the Meeteetse Conservation District.

Despite requests from the commissioners and environmentalists to open the meetings, BLM officials have maintained their closed-meeting position.

The bureau's concern is that residents will only get snippets of information at meetings — not the full picture — and therefore misunderstand discussion and where it's leading.

Yet, in an attempt to prevent misunderstanding, BLM officials are in danger of creating mistrust.

A Wyoming Outdoors Council representative, Nathan Maxon, said he's already seeing it. One bentonite industry worker told Maxon that he is concerned about the plan after hearing a commissioner say it may be bad for industry.

Of course, without knowing the specifics, he likely fears the worst.

In order to trust the government's handling of public lands, citizens need to be able to listen to discussion concerning their land. Opening the meetings would help Big Horn Basin residents gauge the situation for themselves.

That's what many interest groups want.

For commissioners, they feel the public needs to see how environmentally-oriented the plan may be. For environmentalists, they believe the public needs to see how commissioners and others are seeking to make the plan industry-friendly.

With doors closed and information limited, citizens are unable to make their own assessments.

While we appreciate the opposition commissioners and others have voiced, at this point, it seems it may be too little, too late.

A BLM representative made the point last week that the bureau doesn't want to change horses midstream.

Still, the BLM's reluctance to allow public access at meetings concerning the public's land is unacceptable. In a democracy, citizens have a right to be involved with discussion involving their land.

What is the harm if the BLM lets the public know what is happening during the revision process? Excuses from the bureau have fallen short.

Comments