This is the first meeting of the northern area Advisory Task Force for the Hampton – Alma (LaX) part of the CapX 2020 transmission project.  Here we go again.

Going?  Here’s how it’s going — only 7 members showed up, and there were only 10 chairs, only 10 spots allocated per their “charge.”  This Task Force may be the one with NO regular people and only government officials and NGOs — yes, that’s confirmed!  I spoke with Charlie, the “moderator” or “facilitator” about this, and he said that it was from a “land use perspective” and these are “land use professionals” and would NOT address that there are no regular people, only local government officials and NGOs.  He got defensive and repeated that he’d done 11 of these, this was his 12th, and it was always from a “land use perspective.”  I’m amazed… he refused to deal with the public participation issue I presented, and diverted and dodged.

So then after it was over I had a brief chat with Ray Kirsch, who is the “Public Advisor” on this docket.  He also was not concerned, said this was the way it was.  I reminded him that he is the “Public Advisor” and that I didn’t think that an Advisory Task Force without members of the public who are not representing local governments or NGOs (there are no NGOs appointed here either) met the statutory Public Participation requirements of Minn. Stat. 216E.08.

Thankfully, one member is concerned about so many townships that were missing, and first asked if she was responsible for contacting others who were not there, and later asked if she could contact missing townships — they agreed that it was OK to try to bring them in and they’d bring them up to speed.

“Land Use Perspective” eh? Where did that come from?  Here’s the statute:

216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
Subdivision 1.Advisory task force.

The commission may appoint one or more advisory task forces to assist it in carrying out its duties. Task forces appointed to evaluate sites or routes considered for designation shall be comprised of as many persons as may be designated by the commission, but at least one representative from each of the following: Regional development commissions, counties and municipal corporations and one town board member from each county in which a site or route is proposed to be located. No officer, agent, or employee of a utility shall serve on an advisory task force. Reimbursement for expenses incurred shall be made pursuant to the rules governing state employees. The task forces expire as provided in section 15.059, subdivision 6. At the time the task force is appointed, the commission shall specify the charge to the task force. The task force shall expire upon completion of its charge, upon designation by the commission of alternative sites or routes to be included in the environmental impact statement, or upon the specific date identified by the commission in the charge, whichever occurs first.

And here’s the composition of the Task Forces per MOES:

• Northern part – Hampton to Rochester: The ATF will include 13 local government members and up to an additional two representatives of governmental or nongovernmental entities, as appropriate.
• Eastern part – Rochester to Alma: The ATF will include 8 local government members and up to two additional representatives of
  governmental or nongovernmental entities, as appropriate.

Here’s the charge for this particular Hampton-Alma section of CapX (the full doc is below):

OES herein charges the ATF members to:
1. Assist in determining specific impacts and issues of local concern that should be assessed
in the EIS by adding detail to the draft Scoping Document;
2. Assist in determining potential route alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.

LaCrosse Project Task Force Charge

So were does Charlie get this line about “Land Use Perspective” and “Land Use Professionals?”  The exclusion of the public and this “Land Use Perspective” concept aren’t in the charge.  Who’s brilliant idea is that?

If regular people are excluded from participation, what does that do to the result?  If regular people are excluded from participation, does this meet the public participation requirements of Minn. Stat. 216E.08?

Nope, no sir, this sure isn’t how this has been done in the past, and it sure doesn’t comport with the statute (click and read it, does this sound like “public participation to you?) so, to get the real poop, I fired off first one Data Practices Act request and then another:

Task Force Data Practices Act Request

Task Force Data Practices Act 2

Need to get a little background to clarify just what they’re doing here…