California Resource Recovery Association

CRRA Comments on the Special Election Notice

Sent: 1/6/2006

Dear CRRA Members,

The Board of Directors has for the past year been evaluating the system of districts by which members and Board representation are divided around the state. Recognizing that the existing system results in heavily disproportionate representation, the Board formed a special committee to research and recommend ways to address the issue. At the recommendation of this committee, the Board took steps at its December meeting to approach the membership with a proposal to amend the organization’s bylaws to reorganize the district system. Because a change to the organization’s bylaws requires the approval of a majority of the voting membership, an election would necessary. At the next Board meeting on January 17 a final decision will be made on the specific bylaw change proposal to be presented to the membership. This message is intended to familiarize members with the issue and solicit input in advance of the actual election.

Background
Although CRRA was structured differently early on, the current system of nine
regional districts has been in place for much of the organization’s history. As it currently works, Board members are elected in the districts in which they live by all members also living in that district. In concept, the system ensures that member from all regions of the state are represented on the Board, while facilitating networking opportunities in each district.

In pursuing a reform of the district system, the Board is acknowledging several
issues. 1). As currently mapped out, the number of members in the various districts differs wildly. For instance, while District Five (Orange County) has 9 members currently, District Nine (San Francisco, East Bay, North Bay) has 122 members. The result is that certain districts have far greater proportional representation than others. 2). With such a disproportionate division of members, some districts have difficulty fielding any Board candidates while other districts may have multiple interested candidates for a single seat. 3). Though member interests may warrant geographical
representation on the Board, the current system of nine highly-localized districts is not necessarily the best system. Networking opportunities could be preserved through the local chapter and technical council structures that would not be affected in any change.

Proposed Changes
The special committee assigned to review the issue provided the Board with four
options to choose from. The first three involve recommending the membership vote to reorganize the district system while the fourth would be to take no action at all. The redistricting options the Board is considering are as follows (see beneath for a list of current districts boundaries and Board representatives):

Option 1
The state would be organized according to three regional super-districts,
north, central and south. The Board would retain nine seats with each super-district assigned three. Board member terms would remain three years. The terms of each district’s three seats would be staggered so that members voted for a Board representative each year. The new super-districts would be made up of those counties currently distributed in the following existing districts:

North - Districts 1, 9 - 134 Members
Central - Districts 2, 7, 8 - 173 Members
South - Districts 3, 4, 5, 6 - 141 Members

Given the distribution of members across the state, it would be necessary to reduce the number of seats in Southern California from the current four down to three, while adding a new seat to the Northern California super-district.

Option 2
This is a variation on option 1, identical in every respect except that it would break apart the counties in either district 2 (Bob Hollis, Sierra Nevadas) or district 8 (Julie Muir, South Bay/ upper Central Coast) to better distribute membership between Central and Northern California. If district 2 were to be broken up, counties such as Placer, Nevada, Yolo or El Dorado could be shifted to the northern super-district. If district 8 were broken up, San Mateo County could be shifted to the northern super-district. In either scenario, this option would also require shifting a seat from the southern super-district to the northern or central super-district.

Option 3
This option would dissolve the current district lines entirely, reconstituting counties into two regional super-districts, Northern California urban and Southern California urban, while creating a third state-wide super-district representing all rural districts regardless of location in the state. The Board would retain nine members, with three seats in each super-district serving three year staggered terms. Defining the exact boundaries of these districts would still have to be done to ensure proportionate representation.

Northern California urban: Counties such as Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San
Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Sacramento.

Southern California urban: Counties such as San Diego, Orange, LA, Ventura,
and Santa Barbara.

Rural California: Counties such as Mendicino, Humboldt, Butte, El Dorado,
Alpine, Placer, Imperial, Mono and Inyo

As stated above, any change to the existing district system requires a membership vote. At its January 17th meeting, the Board is scheduled to make a final decision on calling an election on any proposed changes. Though the above listed options are the ones currently being considered, they are not binding. The Board is interested in hearing member input in advance of formally proposing a bylaw change. Members are encouraged to contact their Board representative (contact information is available on the CRRA.com website) or to reply directly to this message on the listserv.

Thank you for your involvement in making CRRA a strong member-run organization.

Sincerely,

Alec Cooley
CRRA President

For reference:
Current District Boundaries

District 1 (Alec Cooley) Current membership count: 12 Counties from Mendocino, Butte, Colusa, Lake, Plumas north to the Oregon border.

District 2 (Bob Hollis)   Current membership count:     56 Counties in the central and southern foothills and mountains of the Sierra Nevada range including Sacramento, El Dorado, and San Joaquin down to Fresno and Kern.

District 3 (Barbara Spoonhour)    Current membership count:   46 High desert counties of Southern California: San Bernardino, Riverside, Inyo and Mono

District 4 (Rick Anthony)        Current membership count:   30 San Diego and Imperial Counties.

District 5 ( Susan Collins) Current membership count:    9 Orange County.

District 6 (Todd Hill) Current membership count:    56 Los Angeles County.

District 7 ( Bill Worrell) Current membership count:     32 Central coast counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.

District 8 (Julie Muir) Current membership count:      85 South Bay and central coast counties of Monterey Santa Cruz, Santa Clarita, San Benito and San Mateo.

District 9 (Leslie Lukacs) Current membership count: 122 Bat Area counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma.

Sent: 1/6/2006

Alec,

Thank you for your request for input from the membership regarding this important change.

There is another important attribute that was lost in the shift from election of the Board statewide to the district elections - having Boardmembers that have a statewide knowledge, understanding and expertise. It would be helpful to consider that criteria in developing any changes to the structure of the organization.

To that end, I suggest another option:

Option 4

3 Northern Reps.
3 Southern Reps.
4 Statewide Reps.

District Boardmember terms would remain three years. The terms of each District’s three seats would be staggered so that members voted for a Board representative each year in their District.

The statewide reps. would start with a staggered term of 1, 2 or 3 years, then have 1 statewide rep. elected each year for a 3 year term thereafter.

Southern would include: your "Southern California urban" counties (San Diego, Orange, LA, Ventura, and Santa Barbara) plus your "Rural California" of Imperial County, plus San Luis Obispo, Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

Northern would include all other counties.

That's where the dividing line had been between North and South before the District elections system.
***************
In addition, in previous discussions about this issue, the organization considered designating "slots" on the Board for particular types of backgrounds and expertise. The organization has evolved since those discussions and now has active Technical Councils and Chapters that provide that level of access, background and expertise to the organization. Another option would be to have the Board structured as follows:

Option 5

1 Rep. from each active Technical Council
1 Rep. from each active Chapter
1 or more Statewide rep(s).

This would encourage people to get active locally through their chapters, or statewide through Technical Councils, and be assured that they had representation that reflected activity within the organization. "Activity" of Technical Councils and Chapters would become a more rigorous hurdle, with stricter guidelines on what it takes to have a Board representative for these different groups within the organization.
*************

Good luck on your deliberations.

Gary Liss

Sent: 1/6/2006

Thanks for the input Gary.

Several of the ideas you mention below where considered by the original committee (Rick, Bill and myself) but didn't get forwarded onto the whole Board. Bill brought up the idea of three statewide seats, one each designated to a a particular demoghraphic (a local govt. seat, a hauler seat, a processors seat, an e-waste seat, etc.) Perhaps you can suggest answers to issues that came up. We got hung up on how one decided which constituencies got a rep and which ones didn't. There was also the question of whether everyone statewide would vote for the various constituency-seats or whether only people in that proffessional group would vote for them. With statewide seats there was also a question of designating which type of seat a candidate was running for in a given election. For instance if a local govt. person from LA is running for the Board andf there is a So. Cal regional seat and a local govt. statewide seat do they have to pick which one to run for in advance though they are eligible for both? What if they and five other local govt. people chose that statewide seat and noone ran for the So Cal regional seat. A lot of this is logistical stuff but it seemed to get more complicated the more we tried to define it. The companion thought was that at any given time the Board is fairly well balanced in representing interest groups even without setting aside specific seats.

Its a thought worth considering nonetheless. I'm including the whole board on this message. If you have further suggestion on how to structure statewide or industry-specific Board seats they'd be appreciated. With your option five, an interesting idea for the Board to consider.

Thanks, -Alec

Sent: 2/23/2006

It strikes me that while the re-districting plan is well intended, it is not well thought out. Two potential problems seem obvious right up front. One is that the super regions will combine areas with very little in common in terms of markets, local politics, and regional demographics. As an example, Inyo and Mono counties probably have more in common with Tuolomne county than San Diego.

The other problem is one of population distribution. The fact that Orange County currently only has 9 members is not a good reason to re-district. Rather, given the population of that county, it is a signal our message is not getting out or is not seen as relevant there, and we need to do some serious outreach work. The same would be true of other highly populated counties and districts with low membership.

Just my two cents,

Dave Wade
UC Santa Cruz

Sent: 2/23/2006

HI Bob!

I must say I have some concerns about making such significant changes to the CRRA bylaws by an email vote. Is there some reason it could not wait until the conference? Also, what is the correct forum to discuss views supporting or opposing these changes? The CRRA listserve? The website?

In my view, a one-way posting of the proposed changes for an e-mail vote without explanation or analysis (all I have seen so far) falls far short to the thoughtful discussion and consideration I have long associated with CRRA.

Thanks for listening.

Tedd Ward, M.S. - Analyst / Planner
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

Sent: 2/23/2006

An announcement of the upcoming special election that will address the subjects of redistricting, district residency requirements for board members, and method of delivery for the CRRA Policy Manual went out yesterday to the CRRA Alerts list .

The bylaws call for a 14 day notice to go out in advance of ballots for a special election. The bylaws also require arguments "for" and "against" all measures on a ballot. The purpose of these bylaws is to allow time for debate to take place in advance of voting and to assure that all voters have an opportunity to hear arguments on both sides of every measure.

A member emailed me today expressing concerns that no debate on these potentially significant changes was taking place and inquiring as to the appropriate forum. Considering that there is not a face-to-face members meeting between now and the election it seems to me that this list would be the most appropriate forum.

I personally am hoping that a healthy (and civil) debate will take place to make sure the issue is thoroughly vetted prior to members receiving ballots. I intend to use the arguments "for" and "against" each measure posted to the list or emailed to me directly as the foundation of the "for" and "against" arguments on the ballots.

Anybody who does not want to post to the full list but has an opinion they would like to be included in the "for" or "against" arguments on the ballot for any measure can email me off list to be included.

All the best,
Bob Hollis

Sent: 2/24/2006

The GRC Executive Committee unanimously adopted the following motion today: "The issue of redistricting of the CRRA is too important to be done in the way proposed. GRC urges the Board of Directors to wait until after the Annual Members Meeting, and to agendize this issue for a full discussion, face-to-face, at the Members Meeting.

Sent: 2/24/2006

Alec and other members of the CRRA Board:

First, let me thank you each for all you have done for CRRA. I was out of the country when the January e-mail went out. As far as I can recall, this is the first time in the last 17 years that the CRRA Board has
called for a special election changing the Bylaws before and outside of the members meeting at the annual conference. So I did not suspect that my neglect of pouring through my e-mails for January would include a bylaw change which would in effect change the way my interests and the interests
of our agency would be represented in CRRA.

Though I understand how Alec might feel broadsided by GRC's vote to suggest deferral of such significant bylaw changes until the member's meeting, I feel like this change is too significant to rush. And just because I miss one e-mail I do not feel is adequate reason to feel that I am being difficult when you are in fact proposing to significantly change my representation in this organization. Pardon me for not making the extra effort to follow everything the CRRA Board has been discussing.

I do not enjoy being in the opposition on the proposed changes. I am not even sure that after I have had a thorough discussion of the options that I would really oppose all that has been suggested.

However, I do feel strongly that these changes will likely result in my "regional" representation of our rural agency to be dominated by urban professionals over 300 miles to the south. However I might respect the judgement of such regional representatives, I cannot expect them to adequately represent me or the issues facing our rural community, nor could I really expect that a face to face meeting under this structure would be feasible outside the annual conference.

Therefore I humbly request that you allow me to have space on all printed materials distributed to encourage others to vote no on these issues, at least until we can meet our colleagues face to face to discuss the ramifications of and alternatives to these proposed changes.

Thanks again. Honestly, I would prefer working on some of the real issues facing us, such as EPR and recovery for U-waste. If these changes were done at the members meeting, we would not even be having this exchange. One more example of how haste makes waste.

Continuing the struggle towards zero waste in a participatory representative democracy.....

Tedd Ward, M.S. - Analyst / Planner
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

Sent: 2/24/2006

Personally, I still don't understand why this issue is important and why this election needs to take place.

I remember some discussion about not changing anything, maybe that was back in January but I'm not sure.

Maybe more explanation is necessary but no one seems to be much interested. No discussion has generated on the CRRA members listserve.

Laurenteen Brazil

Sent: 2/25/2006

As a Board Member i wanted all the options that were raised including no change to be discussed by the membership on this list serve. Although the discus sion was published, the comments were sent to the Board and not shared with the membership. Hence the Board had the discussion and not the membership.

In the 30 years I have been a member we have changed our board size only once. We went from a 6 member north/south board to a board with nine districts. In San Diego, we have regular meetings and around 30 paid CRRA members. Under the new bylaws our San Diego group would be subsumed by a region that includes nearly half the state. Currently 5 of the 9 board members live in this region.

The Board created the new regions by CRRA current membership.

I think there were better alternatives then the one the board chose. I was in England for that meeting. However, I did vote to put this out for discussion and vote.

The CRRA members list serve works just like the green yes. If you reply to all, the writer and the entire list gets your message. The same would ooccur if you just replied to the list.

If you have a comment and or another options you need to use this list and talk to your peers.

Thanks

Richard Anthony

Sent: 2/25/2006

I would like to see a copy of the minutes of the last members' meeting, a copy of the notice for that meeting, and all other pertinent details. To my way of looking at things, the Board of Directors did not allow a membership meeting at the Los Angeles Convention and there has been none called before or since. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected. ARBoone

We may have voted for boardmembers but we did not meet as an association.

Sent: 2/27/2006

Dear Fellow Recyclers:

Here's my initial response to the re-districting proposal.

It strikes me that while the re-districting plan is well intended, it is not well thought out. Two potential problems seem obvious right up front. One is that the super regions will combine areas with very little in common in terms of markets, local politics, or regional demographics. As an example, Inyo and Mono counties probably have more in common with Tuolomne county than San Diego, yet would find themselves in separate districts.

The other problem is one of population distribution. The fact that Orange County currently only has 9 members is not a good reason to re-district. Rather, given the population of that county, it is a signal our message is not getting out or is not seen as relevant there, and we need to do some serious outreach work. The same would be true of other highly populated counties and districts with low membership.

Just my two cents,

Dave Wade
UC Santa Cruz

Sent: 2/27/2006

3 mega districts dilute local rerpesentation. A member from a coastal county has a different perspective, different interests from an inland or mountain county member; rural county concerns differ from urban counties. Three members from Oakland could be elected to represent Modoc
county. Membership numbers change over time; when the current districts were created there were adequate numbers in each district from which to draw candidates. That situation may happen again in the future. Retain the existing set-up with the additional provision that if no member comes forward to represent a district, members from the mega-district can run to represent the low-/no- membership district.

Dan Degrassi

Sent: 2/27/2006

Hi All,

I think Dan De Grassi's idea below has merit. It creates a mechanism to cover board seats if no one from a district shows interest. I suggest adding provisions that if a board vacancy needs to be filled from a super district, there must be some obligation to represent the interests of the
whole region and an emphasis on membership building within that district.

Dave Wade

Sent: 2/27/2006

Dave - very good points.

Rick is there a way to stop this steamroller? In the past there has always been open discussion of major policy changes and until last week, I was not aware that this was an issue or concern. Dave made a very good point about the CRRA message not resonating with Orange County which points to a different area of concern. Reapportioning the districts will not address
that, but rather ignores the issue.

Lynn France

Sent: 2/27/2006

If nothing else we can vote no. We could also go to court against the incumbent directors for not having an annual members meeting as required by the bylaws and probably the corporations code. ARB

Sent: 2/27/2006

Art

Please go to the CRRA website and look under "Recyclescene". If you view the May 2005 newsletter it announces the annual member meeting (July 10, 2005), with instructions on how to submit agenda items. There was another reference to the members meeting in the July 2005 newsletter. I don't believe that any items were submitted, so we allowed items from the floor. You were at that meeting, it took place following the Policy meeting on Sunday.

Hope this helps
Judi

Sent: 2/28/2006

I think folks are raising some excellent points regarding the proposed bylaw change. As a board member who has helped run the organization over the last four years, I want to share an inside perspective of why I think this change is important to CRRA.

As was highlighted in the original announcement sent out a month and a half ago, the current system of districts is very unbalanced, with the smallest district containing around ten members and the largest about 160. Simply put, some members have sixteen times the representational power of others. Membership recruitment is important, but it cannot correct this kind of imbalance.

Reform of the district system is necessary to ensure a strong Board into the future. Under the current system, smaller districts struggle to recruit any board candidates while the larger ones may have multiple qualified and interested candidates who are sidelined. While we are fortunate to have a strong Board this year, the current system restricts the candidate pool from which to recruit dedicated board members.

Consolidation of the nine geographic districts into three regional super districts will result in less geography-specific representation. What I think is important for members to understand is that geographic
representation has little bearing on most of what the Board does. The vast majority of the Board's time is spent on issues such as planning the annual conference, negotiating management contracts, soliciting sponsorship dollars, or developing member services such as the zero waste action kit or the planned training certification program. The judgment board members exercise on these kinds of issues is informed not by their geographic location but by what they believe to be in the best administrative interest of the organization. Whether I am in rural Humboldt County or downtown Los Angeles, I approach 90% of my board role in terms of what will result in a strong, stable organization.

I think there is a legitimate argument to be made for geographical representation, especially on policy/ advocacy issues. From my experience, however, CRRA has a greater need to recruit dedicated Board members who will work to grow the organization so that it can offer greater member services, better conferences and a stronger voice with which to advocate progressive policy. When choosing between the two, I believe we need to remove artificial barriers that keep us from recruiting the best possible board
candidates.

Alec Cooley

Sent: 2/28/2006

For anyone who hasn't looked at the BYLAWS recently (me included), I've pasted the Preamble below. I think what may have been lost in some of the discussion on re-districting is why an organization like CRRA has a Board and what the Board members' responsibilities are. Alec's message brings some of that into perspective. To further clarify:

A Board member, regardless of geographic region, personal interests or other affiliation, has a duty to the organization and is always mindful that s/he is working to grow the organization, bring value and services to its members, and maintain the financial viability of the organization.....so that together, the Association, we individuals, recycling centers, and companies, can be successful at conserving natural resources.

There was some concern expressed that specific regions may lose their voice through re-districting. If the Board members are carrying out their duties responsibly, then there is no reason to doubt that a strong Board will take full advantage of the wisdom of all its members. The existing structure of the Association, with its Technical Councils, listserves, Recyclescene, and member meetings, facilitates communication and representation of geographic/market issues. Consolidation of districts will allow the Association to strengthen the membership and leadership of this organization.

PREAMBLE

The California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) is an organization of individuals, recycling centers, and companies pledged to the conservation of natural resources. The Association assists its members with their programs and conducts activities that will promote resource conservation by the people of California .

The California Resource Recovery Association is dedicated to the following principles:

1. To minimize the unnecessary use of resources for consumer packaging and the distribution of merchandise in general; seeking to assure that consumers will not be compelled to support wasteful practices that are beyond their control.

2. To furnish as many of our material needs as possible from the local flow of recoverable, processed resources, and thereby minimizing the mining of raw materials and their importation.

3. To maximize the recovery and recycling of resources in as whole and as useful a condition as possible.

These principles combine to support the Association's basic goals of eliminating waste and unnecessary consumption of resources; reusing manufactured items over and over again by cleaning, repairing and
refabricating; recycling and composting as much as possible of what can't be reduced or reused in the flow of recoverable materials.

Stephen M Bantillo

Sent: 3/1/2006

During my recent 6-year term on the CRRA Board, I don't recall a single time when geographic interests played on a Board decision. It is far more important that Board members be committed to improving the
organization, than that they work or live in some prescribed place. Geographic representation is important in legislative bodies, not for Boards of Directors.

This is a simple enough decision, which doesn't require a year or two of consideration. Let's vote and move on.

John Davis

Sent:3/1/2006

I agree with John Davis, geography does not seem to be significant factor in Board of Director's decisions.

I was on a CRRA Board of Director subcommittee with Alec Cooley and Rick Anthony which developed various options. The subcommittee wanted the Board to be as inclusive as possible. To be as inclusive as possible did that mean dividing the State by geography, or small county vs. large county, or by special interest groups. For example one option was to have Board seats dedicated to various special interest groups like local government, consultant, private hauler, non-profit, etc. Another option was to try
and place rural counties together and urban counties together.

After all this esoteric discussion, reality set in.   Under the current system, we are lucky to find one person to run for each district.   In the last 6 district elections only one district had two people run.   Last year one large district (over 50 members) only had one member vote. This summer 5 (Alec Cooley, Rick Anthony and my term are up and Leslie Lukacs and Susan Collins no longer live in their districts) of the 9 current
seats will be up for election.   Will anyone run to fill these seats?

The overriding factor for me was to make it easy for members who would like to serve to get on the Board of Directors.   I favor the three super districts because I hope it will encourage more people to run for the Board
and keep members interested in the elections. Under the proposed super district system you can run for a Board of Directors seat every year and every member gets to vote every year.   Under the current district system you can only run once every three years and vote once every three years.

Given the above rational you could argue why have districts at all just election Board Members on a statewide basis. This was considered but as a compromise recognizing CRRA's history, we ended up with the north, central and south super districts.

Is this the perfect solution? No. Is there a better option? I'm sure there is. Let me finish with a story that my college professor from North Carolina told many years ago. A group of mice were complaining about how the cat would sneak up on the mice and catch them. Obviously it was a big problem and they spent many hours discussing how to solve this problem. Finally after much discussion they concluded that the solution was to put a bell around the cat's neck. Ok one mouse said, "Who volunteers to do this."

Bill Worrell

Sent: 3/1/2006

I appreciate all your comments on the role of the board. I feel they address the concerns I raised about geographical representation.

The other concern I raised was about districts with poor membership relative to the population. Bill's mentioning the district that only had one vote out of 50 members tells me there's another aspect to this concern, namely apathetic membership. I had been feeling somewhat guilty for losing track of what the CRRA had been doing of recent. I had attributed that to my personal circumstances at work, but see now that I'm not the only person not paying attention.

Dave Wade

Sent: 3/2/2006

Argument Against 06-01:

I urge you to vote NO on Measure 06-01: it would diminish the regional representation on the CRRA Board, and reduce the ability for the CRRA Board to regularly consider the voices of outlying or rural areas of our very large State. Under this measure, the three local representatives for a person from Modoc County could very well ALL be from Alameda. The regional representatives for a person from El Dorado could be from San Louis Obispo. Rural areas could easily lose all representation on the CRRA Board. Say goodbye to any potential for regional councils of CRRA where you could actually expect to talk to your 'representative'. Furthermore, this measure says that up to three 'regional' representatives - one third of the CRRA Board - could be elected from the same town. If this measure passes, we could have the entire nine member CRRA Board come from just three towns.

These changes are not good for your representation, and they would not be good for the credibility of an organization which strives to represent the diversity of challenges facing recovery professionals across the State.

The CRRA Board has neither explained the urgency of this measure nor the rationale for making such dramatic modification to how this diverse state is to represented on the CRRA Board under such a structure. This Measure would be the most significant change to how you are represented in CRRA in
history, and it absolutely at least deserves the face to face discussion we have at the annual members meeting at the CRRA conference.

You deserve better representation than this. Keep statewide representation within our statewide recycling association. Vote NO on Measure 06-01.

Argument Against Measure 06-02:

Please vote NO on measure 06-02. This issue is too important to be rushed to a vote, and deserves to be the subject of discussion at the annual members meeting. Essentially this measure enables businesspersons to choose which CRRA district they can declare as the location of their candidacy.
This gives an unreasonable advantage to candidates from large companies like Waste Management, Waste Connections, or NorCal, who have so many business addresses across the State, that the location where such a person actually lives becomes irrelevant. This would be just one more way that you could literally be distanced from your 'regional' representative on the CRRA Board. If both Measure 06-01 and 06-02 are passed, the entire 9 member CRRA Board could potentially all come from the same company, and all live in the same town. Even if this is unlikely, what is the sense in adopting bylaw changes which make this acceptable?

Keep statewide regional representation within our statewide recycling association. Vote NO on Measure 06-02.

Tedd Ward, M.S., Analyst / Planner
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

Sent: 3/2/2006

If geographic representation is so unimportant (since we all vote with our organization's needs foremost), why are we voting redistricting based on a geographic format? Just a question...

Should we consider CRRA representation based on a formula of "consitutency" (whatever that means) regardless of geographic location? Or how about just voting for one, two or three and the top nine votegetters all become at-large board members? I am just tired of this email factory.

J. Michael Huls, REA
Huls Environmental Management, LLC