Homer Alaska - Opinion

Shavelson, the executive director of Cook Inletkeeper, represents environmental interests on the council. The council said it was giving Shavelson the boot "for conduct that violated Cook Inlet RCAC policies," not for his views.

But under CIRCAC rules, if members disagree with the majority, abiding by policies might be hard to do in good conscience. Here's an excerpt from CIRCAC's Code of Conduct: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this policy, Council Directors, Alternate Directors and officers shall refrain from making disparaging comments about the Cook Inlet RCAC organization, or about positions taken by the Council, in public, or in a manner which may lead to public dissemination of such comments."

In June, Shavelson called the council to task for failing to address what he described as significant issues related to safeguards at the Drift River Oil Terminal in the wake of Mount Redoubt's eruption in 2009.

CIRCAC has a difficult job. Its role is as a watchdog council, but its funding comes from those it is supposed to be watching. There's an inherent conflict, and it's appropriate to remind everyone of that conflict as Shavelson did in a June letter, asking that a CIRCAC report on the 2009 Drift River Oil Terminal incident be revised. Among many other flaws in the report, Shavelson said the council was "silent on the fact CIRCAC was actively negotiating for its funding with Chevron" during the incident. Those negotiations are part of how CIRCAC operates and there's nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with the report referencing those negotiations "to ensure full transparency is achieved," as Shavelson put it.

Shavelson has been on the council for more than six years. He's served as vice president of the body and one year was elected the organization's "volunteer of the year." And, yes, he's outspoken about what he believes to be the right way and the wrong way to do business. It's a pretty safe bet that's he's a thorn in the side of at least some CIRCAC members who view things differently.

While the council is fully within its rights to remove Shavelson from his seat, it's not likely it did itself any favors by doing so. Instead of a watchdog group, it now appears to be deserving of Shavelson's criticism that the council has been complacent and is nothing more than a government and industry mouthpiece.

CIRCAC is supposed to be representative of citizens of Cook Inlet; many of those citizens appreciate Shavelson's outspoken ways. It's hard to think of an instance where vigorous debate — and disagreement — are harmful to the interests of the public. If CIRCAC is unwilling to hear Shavelson's concerns, what recourse does he have but to take them to the public, which he represents?

Instead of removing Shavelson, CIRCAC and all Cook Inlet citizens would be better served by the council reviewing its policies. There should be an opportunity for those who disagree with the majority to have their dissenting voice included in CIRCAC's official reports and other public statements.