Letter from William Thomas 2/28/93
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
February 28, 1993
Deputy Chief J. Lamar Beasley
REPLY TO: 1010
P,O, Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
Dear Mr. Beasley,
Greetings and best wishes for reasoned understanding.
In your February 23, 1993 reply to my January 15th letter to Chief
Robertson you express the belief that I "misunderstood any statement
the Chief may have made at the August 1988 meeting about when public
review of the proposed rule could occur." Please note Associate
Deputy Chief Charles R. Hartgraves' letter of March 16, 1989
(enclosed), which states, "As Chief Robertson agreed in his meeting
with you last fall, here is a copy of a working draft of revisions to
our special uses rules."
In light of this fact it is difficult to understand how Executive
Order 12291 (issued in 1981) changed since 1989 so that USFS now
posits, "we are not permitted to release the proposal because to do so
would impede the Administration's internal deliberations and
decisionmaking," as stated in your letter.
You think "other potentially affected groups could argue the Family
had an unfair opportunity to influence the development of the rule."
First, it is hard to understand why you refer to "influencing" the
developement of the rule. After all, it's not as if we're bidding for
mineral or timber rights here; we're just talking about a regulation
which -- regardless of the justification -- will have the practical
effect of transforming the long established "right" of peaceable
assembly on public lands into a "privilege."
Second, you "estimate that over 660,000 persons were involved in group
events under permit in 1992." Isn't it clear that Rainbow Legaliaison
considers a "permit system of assembly" antithetical to "freedom of
assembly," and is seeking an alternative to additional permit
restrictions? What "unfair opportunity?" You can't honestly think
any of the people involved in group events, currently "under permit,"
might wish to comment that NFS' final rule should place even greater
restrictions on their use of the land than whatever restrictions the
present draft proposes, can you?
Finally, notwithstanding your praise for your Regulatory Officer
Marian Connolly: 1) on or about January 22, 1993 I not only requested
that Ms. Connolly allow a review of the draft, but, after she refused,
I also "asserted that the Family could review a draft of the proposed
rule prior to its approval by the Administration." In support of that
assertion I cited the agency's previous cooperation in that regard
(see, Hartgraves' letter), and 2) while Ms. Connolly may have
"listened carefully to the views expressed," based on her failure to
respond to my written inquiries, I do not agree that she has "been
forthcoming in explaining ... the rationale for (y)our intended
aproach." See, Summarization of USFS Vermont Rainbow Gathering
Report, 1991, and cover letter to Marian Connolly.
Can you understand how it might appear that USFS is not acting in "an
attitude of positive coooperation?"
Why not just give us the draft?
In service to peace through reason,
cc: Cathy Way, Old Executive Building, Rm. 218
FS Regs Page | PCU Administrative Record
Rainbow in Court | Government Views | Public Views
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue