state appeals "Minor CARS"

[Joseph Zorzin]

The TSC with one exception (me) offers continued support for FSC certification.

 

I've attached a document prepared by Bob O'Connor showing the state's response to the Minor CARs (corrective action request) in the August 4, 2009 Certification Evaluation Report. The state is appealing CARs 8,10,13,14.

 

I see that SCS responds to the state's defense by repeating their initial Non-Conformity statement. But then the state comes back again repeating what it said the first time, appealing the Non-Conformity statement and showing that it learned nothing from the dialogue.

 

I should think that the TSC would conclude that if the state wants FSC certification, it ought to be humble about it and except the critiques of SCS. Therefore, I suggest to the TSC that it if it's going to continue supporting FSC certification it should do so conditionally- with the condition being that the state drop all appeals and agrees to not appeal any Non-conformity statements in the future.

 

To give blanket support to FSC, is in my opinion, irresponsible, when we see that the state refuses to do as requested in order to be granted certification.

 

I will continue to not support certification as I believe it's not applicable to the management of public lands as described in that letter to the Chief of the US Forest Service by many responsible environmental groups.

 

For the state to want certification but demand that it's on their terms is absurd and I hope the TSC can recognize this.

 

In the statement, you'll notice the following comment by the state: A small number of stakeholders placed pressure upon SCS and caused the sample visits to be biased.

 

For the state to whine that citizens of the state, who are owners of the public forests, suggested to SCS to look at some sites, is just plain lame and very unprofessional. The entire purpose of certification is to protect the public's interest in their land- not to glorify the state.

 

Later, SCS makes a note that: Bottomline is that the treatment of conifer plantations has been a public relations disaster for the State, SCS, and FSC.

 

I suggest that comment says a lot about the entire process. In several of the comments by the state agencies they point out correctly that in the previous annual reports SCS had a different view on some of these issues. But, once many citizens of the state started looking closer SCS began to realize that it wasn't going to be "business as usual".

 

And so in conclusion, the TSC should also not see the issue of FSC certification as "business as usual". You must insist that the certifier does its job and that the state agencies stop whining.

 

Joe

[fred heyes]

joe

your comments here wander too close to a freedom of speech issue for me. I know that is important to us all. I understand you dont like the concept of third party verification. suggest leave it at that.

 

drop appeals and agree not to appeal in the future???

 

fred

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 1:58 PM
To: TSC; ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Thomas Walker; Ted Cady; Rick Sullivan; Laura Marx; Laura Johnson; Dave Foster; Ian Bowles; David Cash; Dick Cross
Subject: state appeals "Minor CARS"

[Joseph Zorzin]

employees don't have the same sort of freedom of speech as they have outside their employment- so you have that one wrong, Fred

 

if the Commissioner told his agencies to not challenge SCS reports, they must obey, it's not for them to make such decisions- it ain't a freedom of speech issue- it's an "obey your boss issue if you like your job" issue - without such a commandment from the boss, of course I'll expect the agencies to challenge what they don't like- but, if you read that report, Fred, don't you find it strange that the agencies aren't absorbing any lessons from the review? The comeback from SCS confirms their initial review and dismisses the agencies' response in most cases- but then the state comes back again, with their initial comments and denials- showing immense stubbornness

 

what's the point of being reviewed if you're going to deny much of the review? what that says is that the agencies have no faith in that "higher authority" as if that higher authority has no right to challenge them- it's an effort to bully SCS

 

they want, they lust after FSC Certification, as a kind of sainthood, but then they want it on their terms...... which would only show that the process was backwards, that the state was correcting the errors of SCS... which is kinda crazy when you think about it

 

Joe

[fred heyes]

and of course you did not comment that DFW appealed and was corrected

and joe it is not for me a legal issue is is the spirit of the right to have a dialogue

and that that is healthy...

 

reviews are a back and forth...

 

f

 

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin

Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 3:31 PM
To: 'TSC'; forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Dick Cross'; 'David Cash'; 'Ian Bowles'; 'Dave Foster'; 'Laura Johnson'; 'Laura Marx'; 'Rick Sullivan'; 'Ted Cady'; 'Thomas Walker'
Subject: Re: state appeals "Minor CARS"