The Star Tribune editorial on Nov. 26 made a good case for better oversight of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in its regulatory functions ("Dig into concerns over foundry pollution"). At the end of the editorial, it suggested re-establishing the "powerful MPCA Citizens Board"; similar suggestions have been made after the Legislature, in 2015, eliminated it in an act of political retribution. I think it is a good idea to have a citizen's board for transparency of agency actions, but there seems to be some rose-colored blush in historical memory of former boards. I speak from some experience because I was a member of the early MPCA Citizens Board, appointed by Gov. Rudy Perpich, and served from 1983-1991 as solid waste committee chair and vice chair.
In my estimation the Citizens Board's success is dependent on two things: 1) relevant knowledge and constructive attitude about the agency's mission, and 2) constant and substantial coverage of the agency's actions through the board's open meetings. The board is not the final decisionmaker (that is the function of the MPCA commissioner) but can provide the public with agency background and insight into the decisionmaking process. That obviously means thorough briefings by the staff and sincere appreciation of the citizens' board purpose. During my time on the MPCA Citizens Board, the second aspect was provided by Star Tribune's excellent environmental reporter, Dean Rebuffoni, who made sure the agency's actions were highlighted on a consistent monthly basis. The functioning of the first aspect was a mixed bag. I will recount one humorous example. Perpich had a constituent he rewarded by appointment to an arts board that Perpich cared about; he proved to be unsuited on that board, so Perpich continued to reward him by putting him on the MPCA Citizens Board, where he was unsuited as well.
My hope is that a well-thought-out citizen advisory structure can make a difference for our environment and that the Legislature can be persuaded to establish a new Citizens Board.
Having played a small part in the creation of Hourcar, I read with delight the article "Word gets out about electric car-share" (Nov. 27). Over the years, I've watched the evolution of the Twin Cities' car sharing program as it has grown from a few cars and hubs, outcompeted its rivals, added hybrids and charging stations, and gained in popularity and use. The shift to all-electric vehicle, through Evie, was a huge step forward and should serve as a signpost to what might be a transportation paradigm shift. For the day will come when we can no longer afford "mycar," the strongly held belief in the primacy of individual vehicle ownership, regardless of how those vehicles are powered. The use of carbon-based fuels has left us with a legacy of pollution and changes in climate that threaten the well-being of individuals, communities and the Earth itself. And while solar energy is unlimited, the materials needed to convert it to electricity are not. In the face of these challenges, we do need to rethink our individual transportation wants and needs. The successes of the Hourcar/Evie car-sharing model point in a new direction. The question now is whether we can change our ideas about how the individual transportation system should work.
