This is in response to Phil McKenna’s commentary on the California Coastal Commission controversy and to correct some grossly inaccurate assumptions it contains.
I served on the Coastal Commission from 2011-2015. I worked directly with Dr. Charles Lester in 2012 in drafting the performance review criteria, which have been used by the Commission, and participated in all his reviews through July of 2015. Unless the Commission and Lester both agree to waive confidentiality in these reviews, their content cannot be disclosed to the public. It is the law. It is up to the Commissioners now to weigh their ongoing issues with agency management against the good work that has been done in this transition period to determine whether it is time — for the good of the agency and the coast — to move to a different type of leadership for the next 40 years.
That said, I am extremely troubled that some of the environmental leadership in this state has resorted to black hat versus white hat, Trump-like tactics in their zeal to retain Lester at all costs. The issue is not whether retaining or terminating Lester will protect or destroy the coast. This is a false choice, and the polarization it has created is unnecessary and represents a missed opportunity to work together to strengthen the coastal program, not weaken it.