A few excerpts:
Should the annual Rainbow Family gathering be managed as
a recreation event with a law enforcement presence, or
as a law enforcement event with a resource presence?
This issue must be resolved prior to next years event. A
decision in either direction has ramifications for aspects
of all the other issues needing attention. Failure to
resolve will likely lead to an inability to meet management
expectations for future events.
The problem manifested itself in expectations from Ops
Chief, LE. [Law Enforcement - in other words, the chief
cop wasn't interested in thinking of the gathering as
a "recreational event"]. It was further reinforced with
differences in the strategy for developing case law
regarding the special use permit (or lack thereof) for the
Rainbow Gathering. The Rainbows have historically refused
to sign a special use permit, citing first amendment rights
and bristling at the notion that a permit is required for
something granted under the Bill of Rights from the
Constitution. In the eyes of law enforcement, refusal to
comply made the event illegal. Therefore, Regional, and
Forest expectations for managing the gathering were no
longer valid and the team should only do those things
necessary for public safety and resource protection.
However, the Region [i.e., the Forest Service officers in
the region] had made it clear that the special use permit
was only a small bump in the road to success. Regardless
of whether or not it was signed, the expectation was to
complete the assignment and meet objectives as outlined in
the delegation of authority. This created significant
internal conflict throughout the assignment. Resolution of
this problem is key to successful management in the future.
The Rainbow Family has a long history of refusing to sign a
permit for something they view as a Constitutional right.
This creates an immediate point of confrontation within the
first few days of the event. Handling the problem sets the
tenor for management. Once refused, and citations or arrests
made, we are obligated to follow-up with notifications that
the site must be vacated by a specified time and date.
Because of our confrontational history, this creates
significant consternation, rampant rumors, and reduces the
cooperation with attendees, significantly complicating the
situation. In reality, there isn't any reason, other than
legal implications, for the bluff. We have no intention of
forcibly removing 1-2,000 people from the site [before the
1st of July?]. Even if we wanted to, the logistics of
accomplishment would require a military operation.
Gaining family member cooperation is an exercise in diplomacy
that can significantly reduce stress and workload. In 1997
we found that we had common concerns regarding parking,
especially along main access routes. Family members did most
of the in-field contacts and assisted with putting notes on
vehicles that were illegally parked. When it came time to tow
vehicles, we had complete cooperation and understanding from
family members. Coordination of activities can be done
either in council, or by contacts with individuals who serve
as "focalizers". It may be best to use the latter method for
the majority of cooperation contacts. A word of advice: avoid
giving direction to the family if possible. They will refuse
to comply or at best will resist.
Cattle Drive: A local rancher drove 120 pairs through the
event. At first he was concerned and even talked of
canceling the drive. We convinced him to talk to the family
about the event. He did, the family cooperated and the drive
came off nicely.
The names attached to the report are:
Mike Lohrey, Incident Commander
Rich Carver and Rock Gerke,
Operations Section Chiefs (Resources)
Central Oregon Incident Management Team
It looks like they are putting their reputations on the line in
defending the rainbow family gatherings (at least until the
constitutional issues are settled in court). They deserve our thanks.
-- Kirk Wattles <kwattles@mindspring.com> http://www.mindspring.com/~kwattles/