Press enter after choosing selection

Smera: New Breed Of "environmentalism"

Smera: New Breed Of "environmentalism" image Smera: New Breed Of "environmentalism" image
Parent Issue
Month
February
Year
1989
Copyright
Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-alike)
Rights Held By
Agenda Publications
OCR Text

When Scott Chaplin opened his December issue of AGENDA, he was amazed to see a half-page advertisement attacking the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as "reckless, haphazard, and zany." The prominently displayed advertisement was attributed to an environmental group Chaplin had never heard of: "Southeastern Michigan Environmental Resource Association" (SMERA). He sat down and wrote a letter to the editors of AGENDA in which he stated, "I find it difficult to believe that this group is an environmental group."

Chaplin should know about environmental groups. He is a local environmentalist who once worked for Greenpeace. "The SMERA advertisement," he said later, "seemed to be more of an effort to turn people against the DNR than a serious effort to solve our environmental crises." What Chaplin found most surprising was that the state agency he had often experienced as being too lenient with sources of environmental pollution should be attacked by SMERA's ad as being "self-proclaimed 'defenders of the environment,' [who] use government clout with the pretense of cleaning you up when what they really want to do is clean you out."

Chaplin concluded his letter by saying, "...I question whether SMERA is really 'a group of citizens concerned about responsible maintenance and management of the Michigan environment... because any serious environmentalist would know that a smear campaign against the DNR for allegedly being too tough on corporations is a ludicrous way to work for a clean environment. Who are you SMERA, and what are you really working for?"

Chaplin's letter was published in the January issue of AGENDA but so was a second advertisement signed by "Solomon Eagle and sponsored by SMERA.

The object of Chaplin's complaint proclaimed itself to be the "First of a Series," an "Environmental Letter to the People of Michigan" signed with the apparent pseudonym "Solomon Eagle." This SMERA advertisement accused the DNR of being incapable of administering the $440 million of environmental bonds which were recently approved by Michigan voters for clean-up of toxic contamination. The "Second of a Series" (published in January) attacked both the DNR and the Ann Arbor City Government for failing to resolve the municipal solid waste problem.

The advertisements seemed equally rhetorical and both used language that appeared to be highly emotional. The DNR was equated with "Carry Nation with her little hatchet," "a big fat baby," and "an amiable, thirsty, impecunious drunk." Readers were told that "Today DNR - and others- visit modem plagues of fear, ignorance, contempt, and villainy upon the people, towns, and businesses of this state." Imagery, such as "a hammer on the head" and "twist slowly in the wind," as well as the promise that their [the DNR and 'others'] perfidies must be reported and will be in this monthly series" struck some as having an uncomfortably threatening tone.

For two months, people in Ann Arbor and beyond have been echoing Chaplin's question, "Who are you SMERA, and what are you really working for?"

SMERA made its first public appearance with its advertisement in the December issue of AGENDA. In this advertisement SMERA sharply criticized the DNR's implementation of Act 307. Act 307 became an issue a year ago when an Ann Arbor-based scientific filter manufacturer, Gelman Sciences, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the DNR for allegedly failing to have written regulations defining the evaluation and ranking process for polluted sites. Gelman Sciences is currently being sued by the State of Michigan for allegedly contaminating groundwater with 1 ,4-dioxane.

Recently, the implementation of Act 307 was again brought to the public's attention when the company's founder and chairman, Charles Gelman, stated in a widely distributed letter that, "Based on expert testimony, we have been grossly mis-

(see NEW BREED, page 2)

NEW BREED (from page one)

ranked on the DNR's Act 307 list, which ranks environmental contamination sites under the Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA)."

SMERA concluded its December advertisement by calling for, "Dissent, Dissent' when self-proclaimed 'defenders of the environment' use government clout with the pretense of cleaning you up when what they really want to do is to clean you out." Similar concerns were raised recently by Charles Gelman when he was interviewed by Ted Heusel on WAAM. During the broadcast, Gelman stated, "recently we've just dug in and decided to fight back." That decision was reached, he said, after finding the company was confronted with a DNR that was remote and non-responsive and a chief enforcement officer who said Gelman Sciences should be forced out of business.

"Dissent, Dissent" as an appropriate response to unreasonable demands by the DNR also seemed to be on the mind of special council to Gelman Sciences, Edward Levitt, who spoke during a Nov. 30 court-ordered Act 307 hearing. Noting an earlier speaker's request that Gelman Sciences concentrate on contamination instead of litigation, Levitt said, "To the extent we're responsible, we will bear the burden; but to the extent we're not, we will not sit blindly by while we are gouged."

SMERA's next appearance was on Dec. 20, 1988 when two Ann Arbor residents identifying themselves as SMERA representatives testified at the most recent Act 307 hearing. At that hearing, SMERA representative Mark Sutter testified that the combination of pollution scores for a variety of contaminated city, county, state and federal sites made "government" the largest single polluter. The DNR, Sutter argued, should look after offending governmental entities before seeking to police others.

Sutter's list of government-owned sites of pollution included Fort Smith Air Base, KI. Air Force Base and "a marine federal terminal." His argument echoed one made by Charles Gelman in a "Viewpoint" column published in The Ann Arbor News two weeks earlier. In that article, Gelman wrote, "the DNR is able to keep quiet pollution on military bases and police installations."

In his testimony, Sutter described SMERA as "a group that is trying to be a research association that you can come to to gain information and resources concerning environmental issues in general and specific issues related to contamination."

Another SMERA representative at the Act 307 hearing, Karen Roberts, identified herself as the "Government-Business Liaison" for SMERA. Roberts described the group as "a newly formed association of people who are concerned about the condition of the environment in Michigan and about the delay in cleaning up the environment that we believe has been created by the inability of the DNR to interact in a meaningful way with business and other organizations. SMERA is dedicated to the dissemination of information that will lead to a better environment for all residents of this state."

Roberts announced that SMERA was "creating a business hot line" with an "800 number" which is to be called the "NRD (Natural Resources Difficulties) Hot Line." The purpose of the hot line is to receive "all comments, criticisms, and problems encountered by businesses in dealing with the DNR." The information is to be "funneled through a single channel directly to the appropriate DNR official."

Despite the remarkable similarity of views, when asked about SMERA, Charles Gelman responded, "I don't know much about SMERA. You'll have to talk to the SMERA people." When asked if there are Gelman Sciences employees in SMERA, Gelman acknowledged that "a couple of them are, some of them, I believe, are not."

According to Charles Gelman, the only two individuals known to have identified themselves publicly a's representatives of SMERA (Mark Sutter and Karen Roberts) are "highly technical people" employed by Gelman Sciences in marketing. When told that some environmentalists believed SMERA sounded like "a front for ndustry," Charles Gelman responded, "I don't think their intent is to be any front for anybody, but you'd have to talk to them." The appropriate person to speak with, Gelman indicated, was the group's secretary, "Banner."

Reached at his home, SMERA "Information Officer" Adam Paul Banner explained that he was new to the group. "I wasn't in on the conception. I was brought in at a later date." Referring to problems with state and local regulation, the retired Dow Chemical industrial chemist said, "You can't enforce regulations to the point that no chemical company is going to come into the state." "Industry," he explained, "has got to be able to function in some manner...and do it with some rules and regulations...which they can understand and which are obtainable."

When asked about the source of SMERA's funding, Banner responded, "There's been some donations made, and just how much (does) it (come to)? My contact is a lawyer and a couple of other people and we're (going) to get a meeting together and get more formal as soon as we can get all the groups together."

SMERA's post office box is signed in the name and home residence of Edward Levitt. Reached at nis office at Gelman Sciences, where he serves as special council, Levitt said he couldn't remember if he is a member of SMERA from a "legal point of view," but he "very well may be." He explained that he contributes his skills as legal advisor to the group. Asked if SMERA is associated with Gelman Sciences, Levitt said, "No."

Levitt denied SMERA is a front for industry. "No business is giving SMERA its marching orders," he said. "We are not to act as a paid tool nor will we act as a paid tool for anybody and that includes not only business, that will also include an environmental group (and) that will also include an angry citizen."

When asked if the creation of SMERA had anything to do with the problems Gelman Sciences is having with the DNR, Levitt said that Gelman Sciences' litigation with the DNR seemed to be a focal point for industries and others with grievances. Currently that focus is chiefly or. ihe üNR's implementation of Act 307 and the clean-up standards, Levitt explained. Levitt believes SMERA will continue to be active even after these issues are resolved. It will continue, he stated with conviction, "until business and government get along well."

Research conducted in the early 1980s under the direction of U-M sociology professor Mayer Zald examined another instance of a movement that emerged when business and government did not "get along well": the "pro-nuclear movement."

Pro-nuclear groups evolved at a time when the nuclear power industry was experiencing major changes in its political and business environment. Increasing community opposition, rising costs and declining profits resulted in the cancellation of orders for new nuclear power plants and the halting of plants under construction.

The emerging pro-nuclear movement differed from the industry's traditional lobbyists and representatives. Movement members presented themselves as independent advocates of nuclear power. They frequently organized as "citizen's groups" and used the means of political influence which are available to ordinary citizens. In this way, the pronuclear movement developed as a counter to the anti-nuclear movement.

Upon closer examination, however, the pronuclear groups often proved to be less "spontaneous" and more closely linked to the nuclear industry than it initially appeared. Far from being "independent" voices for nuclear power, the researchers found many of these groups were created or subsidized by the nuclear industry. In effect, the industry was creating the illusion of popular and independent support.

The effectiveness of these industry-created groups depended upon the fiction of their independence. Therefore, the industry often attempted to obscure the links which bound them to the "independent" groups they created and maintained.

During the past three years Gelman Sciences has experienced a considerable loss of support in the community. Once viewed with respect and admiration, corporate officials now see their company's reputation suffer under a barrage of criticism associated with the groundwater contamination.

Faced with the dual task of running a major business and addressing a massive groundwater contamination problem, corporate officials appear frustrated that seemingly technical problems must be addressed in a complex and shifting political and social environment. Confronted with some of the greatest challenges in the corporation's history, its officers find a loss of credibility and public confidence results in less control just when they feel more is needed.

It is in this context of a community, corporate and human tragedy that SMERA has emerged.