In Tompkins County; it’s not just government above the people – it’s government against the people. Public participation is a smokescreen of meaningless ceremonies; and anyone who tries to pierce its obfuscations runs into a bulwark of bureaucratic defense. Bringing about change from the public sector is more than difficult; it’s practically impossible. If you don’t bring big money or power to the table – you can’t sit in on the game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHIPPING AWAY AT BUREAUCRACY
(Condensed from the series in Cornithaca County)
Most people would probably agree that government help would be better with more of the “help” and less of the “government.” Our government is quick to proclaim the good of everything it does; and just as quick to find fault with anything that threatens its power.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a job that only requires you to work on problems, not to solve them? This the job description our government has written for itself.
Lines of Defense
If you have ever tried to question policy decisions, stop legislation, or just find out what’s going on in your local government; you’ve probably come up against a formidable array of bureaucratic barriers.
The following is a list of the most common defenses, and the order in which they are usually applied:
1. Discredit the Person
2. Discredit the Facts
3. Discredit the Situation
4. It’s Legal Anyway
“Lines of Defense” will discuss these techniques and give examples of how they are used to sap the energy of any opposition.
The essay will also cover four authoritarian attitudes you will encounter: “The Silence,” “The Refusal,” “The Referral,” and “The Questioning.”
It’s a battle where every time you type in a letter, they can hit the “backspace” button.
In our government’s protective reflex to swat away any annoyance, its first response is to “Discredit the Person” who is causing the trouble.
This is an action that I’m quite familiar with. [See Deadly Drift] After being sprayed with Roundup by an agricultural boom sprayer while mowing my lawn on a windy day [and vomiting up my stomach all over the bathroom floor that night]; I made a compliant to the NYSDEC with the following result:
Their report, that required a FOIL request to access, claimed I was “politically active against farming” even though I had rented the field being sprayed to a farmer for more than 25 years, and found my actions suspicious – leaving it open that I was lying or somehow at fault myself. None of the factual data, such as the wind speed on the day of a herbicide drift complaint, was ever addressed. The report ended with “case closed!”
When it comes to discrediting the facts that conflict with and undermine government policy making decisions; authorities can choose from a number of passive and proactive methods. A bureaucratic favorite is to present the public with background information that deliberately misrepresents, and even omits key facts; in order to validate their chosen course of action.
In their Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): Preventing HABs public document; the NYSDEC never once mentions agriculture as a source of nutrient pollution, although it contributes more than four times the nutrient pollution of every other source combined to the waters of the Finger Lakes – employing terms like “exactly predict” and “fully understand” to justify this deliberate omission.
They do mention that “the amount of nutrients can be decreased by: Limiting lawn fertilization” and “Maintaining septic tanks” – that contribute less than 1% to the nutrient pollution total.
If getting government authorities to admit the facts is difficult; getting them to accurately report a situation and make appropriate policy decisions is almost impossible. Not only do they occupy a “high ground” that allows them to cite everything from jobs to jurisprudence as an excuse; they can change the ground rules to suit their objectives.
A good example can be found in New York’s Finger Lakes, where the region’s most powerful interests are allowed to do almost all of the polluting. Since cleaning up the lakes would restrict the operations and profits of these interests; authorities have decided on a policy that merely maintains the pollution at a profitable level – a level that retains just some of the uses of these lakes. A Total Daily Maximum Load [TMDL] of pollution will be decided, and then divided among these interests, who will “try” to meet the target goals. [Cornell: one of the larger polluters, and heavily tied to agricultural interests, will establish the TDML – so all the “pollution-reduction” planning can be kept comfortably “in-house.”]
This policy will cause many rural people to lose the lakes as a source of drinking water, but all the important residents [and decision makers] are on municipal water anyway; and taxes will be levied to make sure they get the proper treatment.
An important part of today’s regulatory process is how well it works to protect the interests of those who are regulated. Our government continually legislates ineffectual environmental regulations; that effectively protect the polluters.
The media never questions or exposes the laws that have been created to allow polluters to knowingly and repeatedly cause harm to people and the environment. The following court decision concerns an incident took place only a few miles from my house:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [Mather v. Willet Dairy] in finding against plaintiffs suffering from the effects of manure off-gassing that included brain damage in one child and required surgical removal of eyelids in an adult commented that the laws “may be inadequate for ensuring the safety of our environment and for protecting citizens from serious injury. But that is the remedy that Congress has provided and to which we are bound.”
Willet Dairy was shielded by its “permit shield” from any citizen suits – the rural victims were shielded by nothing.
The Questioning: This is the point in the denial process where the experienced bureaucrat launches a barrage of questions; trying to find fault with anything in your argument, while looking for a handle they can use. If you find yourself the focus of authoritarian questions, ask some yourself: like “If this is an accurate description of the situation and these facts are confirmed; what can you do to help us correct it?” This may give you a little breathing room. [Be sure to have your own questions ready.]
The Refusal: When power is concentrated like it is in Tompkins County, it stands untouchable. No matter how much evidence is gathered, no matter how much misconduct is involved, the County’s elite can slam the door shut on any activist: They refuse to investigate, they refuse to enforce the law, they refuse acknowledge, they refuse to start, they refuse to stop; they just refuse — and what can you do about that?
“The Silence” and “The Referral” are classic bureaucratic tools for frustrating any troublemaker who upsets the smooth flow of government routine. You may be taking time out of your life, but this is their life, and they’re being paid for every minute they delay, equivocate, or redirect. It’s not surprising that you may keep leaving unanswered voicemails, texts, and emails and they are “out of the office until. . .” or “in a meeting” so regularly when you show up in person or try to work your way up the departmental ladder — a bureaucrat who does nothing is doing nothing wrong. And when you have finally caught up with the fugitive functionary; all the sweat of your effort may be turned to ice by “The Referral.”
It takes only a few seconds and a few words to send you off to fill out additional forms, lobby higher-ups for their approval, or to track down someone in some other department who is even more inaccessible and difficult to get in touch with. I have had the experience of being passed around in an inescapable circle of referrals; back to the same office and the same person I started with weeks before.
“The Referral” can be the most difficult of all obstacles to overcome.
