A Fresh Breeze From The Herald Wafts Over The Partnership

Check out the editorial voice Peter Jackson and his editorial writers at The Herald are establishing. Over the last three weeks, they've opined on coal exports, the San Juan Island National Monument, food fish safety and coal trains.

Earlier this month, the subject was saving Puget Sound and praise for Governor Jay Inslee's proposed natural resources budget.

Specific to Puget Sound, the editorialists wrote:

"Most of Inslee's recommendations dovetail with the priorities of the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency responsible for the Sound's recovery. The partnership has become a lean, efficient bird-dog of state funds, ensuring oversight and accountability. Coordinating and leveraging federal dollars also falls on the partnership, as well as developing indicators of a healthy Sound consistent with its 2020 restoration goals. The partnership no longer gets scapegoated as too top-heavy or PR oriented, with an evolving bipartisan consensus. The reason centers on tangible results such as restoring shellfish beds previously off-limits because of contamination."

The "lean, efficient bird-dog" description and no longer "top-heavy or PR oriented" description had me checking out the Partnership staff web site since I'd not heard much from or about the Partnership since its executive director Tony Wright resigned earlier this year. I couldn't tell how much leaner or efficient the Partnership had become by perusing its staff roster but I did learn that Marc Daily is now serving as Interim Director.

With all due respects to Marc Daily, having an interim director for an agency charged with saving Puget Sound unfortunately doesn't inspire much confidence in the state's pursuit of this important task.

Nevertheless, The Herald editorialists see a new day for the Partnership thanks to delivering "tangible results such as restoring shellfish beds" and to "developing indicators of a healthy Sound." That led me to check out how well the Partnership (and Puget Sound) is doing in meeting the 2020 benchmarks that measure how 'fishable, swimmable and diggable' our Sound is. 

The Partnership's colorful Vital Signs display shows a few tangible results-- but we're clearly running out of time as the Partnership moves closer to 2020. What's disturbing is how many of the indicators of Puget Sound recovery don't show progress and some don't have interim targets to measure progress.

Sadly, the Partnership has never told its story or the story of Puget Sound very well since its inception in 2007. Maybe better "PR" -- in place of or in addition to its campaign of picking up dog poop -- would have resulted in more Puget Sound residents seeing the waters of the Sound as at risk. In 2007 about three-fourths of people polled thought the health of Puget Sound to be good or excellent; five year later, the Partnership's polling found little change in that public perception. ( General Public Opinion Survey 2012 ) 

It's a good thing that The Herald newspaper still thinks the Partnership and the need to save Puget Sound are important enough to editorialize about.  The issue is too important to fade from public awareness. How about Puget Sound environmental groups and other major news media do their parts to watch dog the Partnership and put the "action" into its Action Agenda?

--Mike Sato

Naming Rights: Chuck E. Cheese’s Bridge, Tokitae, and Joe Spike Dog

Some found amusing the proposal by State Representative Jan Angel (R-Port Orchard) to let state and local agencies raise revenue by charging for the right to rename public buildings and infrastructure. She said the idea came to her while brainstorming how to curb tolls on the Tacoma Narrows bridge. ("Lawmakers fear names like Chuck E. Cheese Bridge")

I think we’ve already gone down that slippery slope and it’s hard to stop, especially when the old “revenue in hard times” argument is sung. We name public structures--  Key Arena, Qwest Field, Safeco Field, Hec Edmundson Pavilion, Paine Field— sometimes for money, sometimes just for the honor.

In the last naming round for the new Washington state 144-car ferries, “Ivar Haglund” was supposedly a contender but “Samish” and “Tokitae” were the names chosen. “Tokitae” is also the name given to a captive Puget Sound orca  known as “Lolita” in the Miami Sequarium.  We also name our Southern resident orcas — the J-pod includes Granny, Oreo, and Mike; the K-pod Cappuccino, Lobo and Kali; and the L-pod Skana, Orphelia and Ocean Sun— in addition to giving them numerical designations.

If you discover something you usually get to name it or name it in honor of someone as in the case of Halley’s comet, the Van Allen radiation belt, the Salk vaccine, Vancouver Island, Puget Sound, Mount Rainier and Baker. Salish native peoples gave their names to Tahoma and Komo Kulshan. Bert Webber succeeded in renaming Puget Sound and the Straits of Georgia, Haro, Rosario and Juan de Fuca the Salish Sea.

The right name, most people believe, is very important for success or good fortune. A lot of time and money are spent to get it right: Cars get names (Mustang, Jaguar, Eclipse) and some people even name their cars.  Teams have names (Huskies, Sounders, Mariners) and our businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Nintendo) and our clubs and organizations (Roller Betties, Seal Sitters, EarthJustice).

Our rescue dog came with the name “Joey” but I call him “Joe” because he’s just not a “Joey.” The rest of my household call him “Spike” because he’s not a “Joe’ to them. Parents name their children— and sometimes children grow up and change their names: “Timothy” worked well for parents; “Timothy” grew up and really needed to be known as “Tim.”

Naming celestial objects, bridges, whales, hurricanes, pets and children is not something to be taken lightly. There’s a slippery slope, because I’m sure someone has brainstormed a revenue source that includes selling naming rights for a zoo’s new baby gorilla or tiger. And I’m sure there are weird news accounts where a person has offered to change his or her name in consideration for money or notoriety. “Hi, I’m Papa Murphy Smith. I’d like you to meet my wife, Frito-Lay Smith, and my kids, Pepsi and Mountain Dew Smith.”

Naming is a serious business because, done right, it gives something an identity, a connection to other named things. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge tells me what the bridge spans and the Deception Pass Bridge must be pretty spectacular, even before seeing it. I once knew “Young Dick” Pickering and “Old Dick Pickering. There was no way to get them confused and calling the wrong one at Pickering’s Sand and Gravel for a truckload of cement.

I like the way Carol Kaesuk Yoon, author of Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science, drilled down on what a serious business naming is in her New York Times column, “Reviving the Lost Art of Naming the World”--

“No wonder so few of us can really see what is out there. Even when scads of insistent wildlife appear with a flourish right in front of us, and there is such life always — hawks migrating over the parking lot, great colorful moths banging up against the window at night — we barely seem to notice. We are so disconnected from the living world that we can live in the midst of a mass extinction, of the rapid invasion everywhere of new and noxious species, entirely unaware that anything is happening. Happily, changing all this turns out to be easy. Just find an organism, any organism, small, large, gaudy, subtle — anywhere, and they are everywhere — and get a sense of it, its shape, color, size, feel, smell, sound. Give a nod to Professor Franclemont and meditate, luxuriate in its beetle-ness, its daffodility. Then find a name for it. Learn science’s name, one of countless folk names, or make up your own. To do so is to change everything, including yourself. Because once you start noticing organisms, once you have a name for particular beasts, birds and flowers, you can’t help seeing life and the order in it, just where it has always been, all around you.”

No “Chuck E. Cheese’s” Bridge, thank you.

--Mike Sato

Saving Puget Sound: Brand, Re-brand, No Brand

My colleague Joan Crooks of Washington Environmental Council wrote me a nice email on Monday dressed up just like a message from People For Puget Sound. She even got the typography of capitalizing the “F” in “For” right. Maybe it was meant to be new wine in old skin or maybe old wine in new skin or old wine in old skin —somebody help me here— but it just tasted weird and strange.

In essence the message was that the People For Puget Sound saving Puget Sound beat will go on— somehow and soon, stay tuned. I will. After all, Joan has my email address and everyone else’s that was in the massive database of the now-defunct 20-plus year-old organization.

The “People For Puget Sound” brand, however, is pretty heavily damaged. Here’s why:

The organization knew well in advance of founder and executive director Kathy Fletcher’s retirement in 2011 that it needed to rebrand itself from “Kathy Fletcher’s organization.” Hence, it spent nearly two years upgrading its administrative systems, updating its strategic plan and developing an executive director search and transition plan.

The new executive director would be chosen to carry out the strategic plan with all systems operational and move the organization forward into the next decade. The transitional pivot in the rebranding was the 20th anniversary celebration throughout 2011, first looking back on the organization’s accomplishments, then— and most important-- looking forward to the next 20 years under new leadership introduced throughout the Sound at community and member events.

New executive director Tom Bancroft and the board of directors chose not to follow the transition plan, instead choosing to reduce work force to reduce operating expense. Thence began the eclipse of People For Puget Sound: declining public engagement, declining public profile, declining influence. Members and the very people of Puget Sound weren’t told what, if anything, the organization was doing and accomplishing for the Sound. No accomplishments, no funds raised. No bangs, no bucks. Classic death spiral.

The board and Tom Bancroft never rebranded People For Puget Sound; they sank “Kathy Fletcher’s organization.” And now, WEC has taken the nameplate and says one day she will float again.

Will she float again as a USS Nimitz alongside WEC’s USS Stennis? Or a dinghy towed behind the WEC yacht? Will wait to see.

--Mike Sato

People for Lake Padden Say, 'Thanks!'

Betsy Gross (Photo: David Roberts)

People for Lake Padden director Betsy Gross wrote late in the evening of February 28:

"Tonight, Whatcom County Council voted unanimously to reject an ordinance reinstating the Yew Street Reserve Urban Growth Area.  This decision was influenced by many variables, not the least of which were the letters and calls to County Councilmembers by many individuals and organizations, including you, supporting People for Lake Padden's recommendation to delay voting on a possible rezone/ UGA designation reinstatement until such time as their scientific studies of the lake's waters/ watershed could be completed.  We thank you so much for your support; it made a huge difference.

"We will complete our land use analysis and water quality survey of Lake Padden this coming fall, and report our findings to city and county officials. We believe that these scientific studies will provide guidance for future land use decisions and stewardship of Lake Padden.  We believe that the health of Lake Padden can be protected and improved by using the best scientific methods to measure water quality and lake health.  Using that science, government agencies can adopt best management practices in pollution prevention and land use, and our communities can become more aware of the lake’s value and become more engaged in its stewardship.

"People for Lake Padden is an all-volunteer effort augmented by Western Washington University interns and academic oversight.  The studies and findings are coordinated with various government partners in the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the State Department of Ecology to exchange information, ensure scientific integrity, and provide quality assurance.  We can be found on the web here.

Thanks again for your support; we really appreciate it."

Screwed: Komen’s Pooch

M.I.A.

Maybe M.I.A.’s flipping America the bird during Super Bowl halftime festivities will be enough to make folks forget the Susan B. Komen For The Cure’s massive screw up over de-partnering then re-partnering with Planned Parenthood last week.

I doubt it will be that easy.

The Foundation first announced via an Associated Press story that it would no longer provide funding, based on its new funding criteria, to organizations that are under investigation. Planned Parenthood provides breast examinations and related care to thousands of women unable to afford health care but is under investigation by an anti-abortion Florida congressman.

The Foundation got blasted in the media, by elected officials and on social media networks and, by week’s end, apologized to its donors, reversed its decision and reinstated funding to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, for its part, received nearly three times in donations the amount of funding it would have lost.

What in the world was going through the skulls at Susan B. Komen For The Cure? Did their PR people advise them that something like a news release to the wire service would allow the Foundation to fly under the radar of public perception and opinion? Do people who give stupid advice and take stupid advice like this still have jobs at the Foundation?

"Komen has lost touch over the years and just become increasingly insulated and out of touch from the people on the front lines, the people who donate and walk and participate in their fundraisers," says Women with Cancer blogger Jody Schoger.

Where should this rate on the Screw the Pooch scale of PR debacles?

Above or below Netflix hitting the rewind button after customers cried foul on plans to split up its DVD rentals and streaming services, effectively doubling customer monthly fees?

Above or below Bank of America becoming one of Occupy Wall Street’s poster villains before retracting plans to charge $5 monthly fees for all debit-card users?

Above or below Mitt Romney finally showing that he makes more than $56,000 a day without working?

It’s wise, they say, never to overestimate people’s knowledge of the facts nor to underestimate people’s intelligence. I certainly hope so.

--Mike Sato

Would You Take A Donation From Wal-Mart?

I gave a talk yesterday about doing public relations for not-for-profit organizations to Taimi Gorman's communications class at Western Washington University. I asked students whether, as the PR professionals they were to become, would they recommend taking corporate contributions from Wal-Mart?

The answers ranged from "Yes" ('that's less money they will have') to "Depends" ('what will you have to do in return' and 'who will get upset').  Except for one categorical "NO" ('not as an anarchist organization'), no one chose to answer by drawing a bright line against it.

That surprised me because I've had that discussion and I've recommended drawing that bright line against taking money from Wal-Mart, period. I've argued that, while some people would be upset and some people wouldn't be, it wouldn't be worth it to create a situation of choosing one side instead of the other. And, honestly, is taking that money any different than how a corporate political contribution looks like it 'buys'?

I don't support the Wal-Mart business model and don't think Wal-Mart is good for our communities, period. Does what I personally believe make a difference? Should it? Live long enough and you should get to know the feeling of having to do something you personally don't believe in.

We never got to that part of the discussion in class. I remarked how young and fresh they all were. I hope they all do well.

--Mike Sato

Salish Sea Communications: Truth Well Told