[I attended only the Sat. session, which included Anne and Caroline (sp?)
from the Forest Service.  Since I am not a fast writer many of my notes
are summaries or paraphrasing of the speakers.  I use square brackets ([])
to indicate my current comments on the notes.  Many of my summaries or
choices of high points will reflect my bias.  For a more complete set of
notes see Gonzo's forthcoming notes which will be much more complete.  Note
also that most of the questions directed to Anne were written down by her
but not responded to during the council, and it appeared that she planned
to deliver a later response to all the questions, although I don't know if
that will happen.]

Info volunteer: There is a concerted harassment campaign at both the
national and regional level.  Will there be a change in policy?  [I think
this is answered later on.]

Local "Rainbow's" heartsong: We need to work together, better than fighting.

Native American Indian sister: The signature is a "big deal." Her tribe
has spent 100 years trying to undo one signature.

Anne Melle gets feather:

Her goals: to deliver first hand info from the Forest Service...

(interruption: Anne is asked to recount her first response to the
gathering.  She agrees a lot of good things happen at gatherings, has fun
and this is one of her reasons for going.  They should continue and are a
good thing.)

-As LEO she increasingly sees the "ugly underbelly:" people dosed against
their will, children dosed, i.e. gatherings are not perfect.

-Increasing number of attendees don't know what to do, and don't care.

-The FS understands what people can or cannot do with "peace, love, hugs,
and good intentions."  [Evidently, participants themselves are naive and
don't quite understand this.]

-FS and attendees need to work together to serve the whole community, the
goal being "the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long
run."

Anne Melle does a "permit walkthrough:"

-scope: gatherings not unique.  Other non-commercial group uses include
weddings, family reunions, Boy Scouts, churches, Native American, etc.

-process of obtaining a permit: application alone (?)

-Proposal is a three-stage process: application, response from FS,
(approval?)

-contact process should be done quietly, FOIA concern

-Early proposal requirements:
        agent [contact] information
        Description of activity
        Location of activity

-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act): FS cannot comply within the
48 hours [minimum specified response time limit specified by the
regulations], therefore applicants must avoid environmentally sensitive
areas.  Such areas also may require public comment, which again brings up
the issue of confidentiality [i.e. keeping info on the location quiet].

-The permit is issued to the group, event, and everybody on the land.

-The Forest Service is a single point of contact for interfacing with
other federal agencies affected by or involved with the event.

On the constitutional issues:

-The FS understands the concerns of attendees.

-Description of 3 branches of government and separation of powers.

-Previous version of regs were ruled unconstitutional.  [note: I'm not
sure nor thought to ask at the time, which version of the regs she
referred to, since at least two versions were ruled unconstitutional.]

-Description of the Supreme Court's role, and the time, place and manner
restrictions on First Amendment rights.

-There have been "unpublicized" rulings against many who have challenged
the constitutionality of the regs: she cites a summary of the court cases
included in her handout documents.

-the regulation is not going away: "Many courts have upheld the regulation
and we're not going to change it."

-mentions "Noncommercial Group Use Committee."  [The first I've heard of it.]

-After last spring there was a change in policy: in the past the FS "turned
a blind eye" but this has changed.  The new policy is a three part escalation
process (my wording):
 
 1) Ask for permit for group over 74 people.
    if permit is not forthcoming, then:
 2) Ask group to reduce its size to 74 people or less,
    finally:
 3) group is told to leave the site.

-On the emergency declaration issue, this is a matter of "practical
realities" like pay, procurement, and is the most effective way to
administer.

-Malcolm Jowers works for Anne and will be next year's contact person.

Ben Masel's written questions (Ben was not present):

Q: Will FS recognize that RFLL is not a organization and does not have
leaders?

A: The regs apply regardless of group's status.

Q: Emergency declaration?

A: Already answered above.

Q: Joint press statements?

A: Logistically not possible.

An outspoken male a.g.r.  poster (not me) brings up the problem with town
meetings, lies by the Forest Service, and the public denigration of
gathering participants.  Anne: hears the point but calls it a consequence
of an "illegal gathering."

At this point a heated discussion of recent town meetings erupts and
Anne's answers to Ben's questions is interrupted.

-Male participant gives a description of the Wisdom town meeting prior to
the MT 2000 gathering, in which a near riot was incited by Bill Fox and
the Rainbow gathering participants at the town meeting believed they were
in danger of physical attack due to possible mob violence.  He also
described visiting the MT site later and found that although the meticulous
restoration of the site by the Rainbow participants was highly successful,
it was in the process of being clearcut.  The issue of preservation of past
gathering sites was raised but not addressed by the FS.

-Anne met with Jeff K. and senior FS staffers.  [As far as I know this is
the first time this has become public.]  Jeff K. and Garrick B. proposed
that if the focalizers don't get a signer then Jeff K. will sign.  Garrick
B. will "execute" the permit and Jeff K. will sign it as a self-designated
individual, and this is consistent with the regulations.

-Anne is asked whether a contact person becomes an agent.  Her answer is
that the permit binds the group but that this does not change the process.
[I don't know is this is a legalistic, evasive answer, or just a lacking in
my own notes.  Hopefully someone else took better notes on this since it
seems like a key issue.

By this point pandemonium has broken loose and everyone agrees to start
passing the feather to restore order.

Q: What is the time frame for the written application [prior to the start
of the gathering or the presence of 75 people]?

A: Minimum is 72 hours, but there are [previously mentioned] problems with
the minimum time.

Q: What is the [maximum] area for the 75 person limit [at which point they
are no longer considered a group]?

A: It's a grey area.  [Answered as quickly as you can say "unbridled
discretion" :-)]

Comment: "We have been presented with a very kind and friendly ultimatum."
This sentiment is echoed by several in the circle.  "I want to see
compromise and I don't see it." Instead we have "basically a threat." "Can
the FS bring anything to the table?"

Proposal: Joint public info meetings.  [Several old timers chime in that
this happened several times in the past, when FS/Rainbow relations were
more cooperative.  Numerous examples are cited.]

Comment: Change must happen in the FS at the policy level.  [This point
also was echoed by many present.  Others like myself believe that policy
level change is not enough: the regs themselves are constitutionally flawed
and have to be scrapped or rewritten, although the FS insists this will
not happen.]

-comment on black ops commandos, radio jamming, fires set by shady
characters, etc. adds conspiratorial note to the meeting.  Drug event
propaganda may bring in drug users [and dealers].  Early local warning by
FS (e.g. WA) may bring people in too soon and into the wrong area.

Comment: If we sign, it will lead to additional demands.

Question about police enforcement policy: Where are the standards of
enforcement?  [This is a new issue for me.  This touches on the "unbridled
discretion" issue, and on "as applied" constitutionality.  Anne wrote down
the question but I don't recall any response at the time.]

Comment: There are critical court cases hanging in the balance and signing
a permit will harm these cases.  The Supreme Court is considering hearing
one Rainbow case, but this will not happen if a permit is signed, because
signing a permit will moot the constitutional issue under consideration.
"We don't need to a signature to legalize our actions, they need one [to
legalize their actions]."

Comment: None of these problems [between the gathering and the FS] existed
until the regs were written.

Comment: The Forest Service admits that the preamble to the regs targets
the Rainbow Gathering.

Q: What about group liability if nobody signs the permit?

A: A repeat of the past, e.g. the magic hat.  [The apparent implication
is that the signing of the permit by a self-designated contact person will
result in legally enforceable group liability, but as far as I recall the
exact legal nature of that liability was never discussed.]

Q: How did the "war" [between the FS and the gathering] start: "who, what,
where and when?"

A: It was the resource people who asked for the regs.  [This is difficult
to square with the numerous positive responses from the FS resource people
over the years.  Most or all of the negative responses to the gatherings
have seemed to come from the LEO division of the Forest Service.]

More from the outspoken male a.g.r. poster:  Still saying the permit is
unchanged regardless of the agreement.  "No group process can be an end
result of actions of a self-designated individual." There is "more to the
signature than gaining compliance, it's gaining control." "Remove the
signature clause."

Anne's response: Don't need a signature for the site proposal and initial
contact, but a signer must be designated at that time.  Anne will ask DOJ
lawyers if they can "indemnify the scouts" who approach the FS prior to
site proposal.

Comment: "Any signature is under duress and threat [and therefore invalid]"

My final comments from memory, and not from my notes:

-Both sides realize and accept the permit signing as a foregone conclusion,
with unspecified liability implications for gathering participants.  The
majority of council participants opposed the signing.  There was no formal
consensus on any issue by the council during the Sat. session.

-Non-FS participants seemed unanimous that the permit regulations and FS
policies are deeply flawed.  FS personel simply repeated their position
and court rulings without much in the way of justification, or clearly
addressing the perplexing legal, ethical, and liability issues surrounding
compliance with the regulations.

-The Forest Service did not agree to any policy change regarding permit
enforcement and compliance.  They did not seem interested in any compromise
or change, citing the courts' support for the current regulatory scheme.
No concessions were been made before or at the council: the newly proposed
signing arrangement is simply "consistent with the regulations."   Anne
repeatedly stated the position of the FS and the courts, but did not address
specific constitutional issues raised by council participants.  Many council
participants seemed to interpreted her statements as an ultimatum to gain
compliance with the regulations, rather than an attempt to seek cooperation
based on mutual understanding.  It was as if non-compliance with the regulations
at Rainbow Gatherings was simply a matter of misunderstanding and miscommunication
on the part of participants, but not due to any real First Amendment issues,
and all that should be necessary to gain compliance with the regulations is
to clearly explain them to council participants.

-One participant, who also participated in the Jeff K./FS conference call,
described the signature requirement as mere "ink on a piece of paper" and
said it should not stand in the way of working with the Forest Service.
Others, including the Native American sister mentioned before, recalled past
US government deceptions and atrocities committed because of "mere" signatures.

-The majority of the council participants seemed to disagree with the
notion that a signature on a permit is a mere formality.  I personally was
not satisfied with the Anne's description of liability issues connected to
the permit signing, and her answers regarding liability seemed evasive.
Liability is only one of several issues connected to the permit where
massive "unbridled discretion' on the part of the Forest Service becomes a
major concern with respect to the chilling of First Amendment expression.

-The Forest Service was clear and uncompromising in their demand for compliance
with the permit regulations, while being correspondingly vague and noncommittal
regarding the liability and constitutional implications of the regulation with
respect to participants in Rainbow Gathering.  Not that I was expecting much
more than this since Anne and Caroline and only the messengers of their superiors
in the Forest Service.  Still, I hope that the questions Anne wrote down but
did not answer will be answered in the future, either online or in a council circle.

The bright side for me was the incredible eloquence of many of the heartsongs,
and the mutual respect shown by participants regardless of the heated subject
matter.  I wish that anyone who doubts the viability of the "Rainbow" council
process could have been present.  It was an awsome to witness.