Chairmans Message

Hello All:

There have been some questions regarding the recent discussions for the potential the Birch/Cedar Lane Project; the following paragraphs may provide helpful information. My sincere thanks to Dr. Jeff Thornton of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) for his contributions to the topics discussed.

Concern:
WWMD plans to present Birch/Cedar Lane to SEWFRC. At the February meeting the Commissioners voted unanimously to proceed, but did so with virtually no discussion.

Information:
There was little discussion because the Board was aware of the listing of possible projects, which has been compiled and maintained and because the action approved was simply to seek cost share funding of these projects. While there might have been some further discussion of priorities, the fact that the commissioners were agreeable to the two projects recommended being pursued suggests agreement with the subcommittee's prioritization of these projects.

Concern:
Nothing tangible was discussed by any Commissioner before the vote regarding the scope of the problem:

Information:
The list of potential projects has been in existence since the early days of the WWMD: Hence, it can be assumed the Commissioners were aware of the nature of these projects.

Concern:
Commissioners voted blindly to engage this project with no understanding if a problem exists, if so the magnitude, and if corrected the desired outcome.

Information:
The fact the project concept was included on a list of potential future projects would suggest the Commissioners were aware of the general nature of the issues involved. The magnitude of the issue remains to be defined during the Engineering and Design Phases of the project, IF cost-share funding is awarded. The desired outcome is control of erosion to the extent practicable; which is in part definitional in the Statutory Mandate of the WWMD and articulated in the WWMD Management Plan (Volume 1 and Volume 2 .

Concern:
Commissioners received and reviewed printed material prior to the meeting (e.g. aerial photos, water samples, site walk-down data, surface photos, SEWFRC recommendation report, CAUSE recommendation report, etc.)

Information:
This cannot be presumed. The compilation of the list of potential future projects was noted to have been an activity of the applicable subcommittee. The basis of the list was noted to be Commissioner Observations, elector/property owner reports and/or information provided by others such as CAUSE.

The information could have been verbal, so the only record would have been the inclusion in the list of potential future projects table. Some of the information may be from the WWMD or FRC Plans, which are publically available on our Website (wwmd.info). Review of the documents by individual Commissioners occurs, and as long as there is no discussion between Commissioners outside a posted meeting, there is no issue. .

Concern:
A secret commissioners’ meeting was held prior to the February meeting to discuss and decide beforehand.

Information:
This cannot be presumed. WWMD participates in monthly meetings, which are posted as required and supplemental notifications are available as well. If you feel there is a breach in compliance the Open Meetings Laws, submit your reports directly to the Department of Justice, Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen.

The list of potential future projects has been in existence for some time. Since it is a recommendatory to the Board of Commissioners, the subcommittee that compliled the list can't be faulted for any violations. The disucssion was in open session, the decision taken was to pursue potential funding for the two projects.

The action taken was simply to instruct the subcommittee to take the two potential projects forward to the FRC and solicit cost share funding. There has been no decision to proceed with implementing either project. The decision will be based on whether there is cost share funding available.

Concern:
Review the details of the decision making process WWMD commissioners used to approve pursuing Birch/Cedar Lane project

Information:
The process by which the project concepts can be placed on the list for future evaluation may be by Commissioner observations, elector/property owner

reports and/or information provided by others such as CAUSE. The "decision making" process would then be eludicated in that the presence of potential future projects on the "list" is sufficient to motivate the Commissioners to seek cost share funding to the extent possible.

Concern:
If there are tangible reports reviewed by commissioners pursuant to the Birch/Cedar vote, will riparian owner have access to them?

Information:
If there are any "Tangible Reports" access is possible.

Concern:
Review WWMD decision to deny riparian owner access to the draft dredging permit application

Information:
If this refers to seeking access to the document request delivery from the WDNR, there has been no denial of riparian owners access to the draft dredging permit application. The document has been requested from the subcommittee, and will be available on reciept.

Concern:
Review WWMD decision to deny riparian owner access to the mailing list used to send recent WWMD news letters to riparian owners.

Information:
The Owner of the list is Racine County. WWMD has no intent to prevent access, but to direct the requestor to the entity able to provide the information.