LAMINATION

by William (Bill) Campbell, Conner

In early days the practice of adding layers for strength or measured flexibility was a common practice.  Typically, knives and swords.

Fast forward to the digital age where the term, laminating or lamination, assumes a whole new meaning.  The figurative “stacking” of layers of digital information or requirements has become a means to filter inquiries by the addition of sheer numbers, requirements or increasing difficulty, in some form.

The technique has long been a practice in the field of law, where if you cannot blind them with your brilliance, you can baffle them with your B/S.  If questioned, the rebound is to question the intelligence of the inquiry.  If you cannot win them over, then you grind them down.

Enter the SHEEP CREEK PROPOSITION. 
The efforts of those opposed to the proposition have been effective in that they have caused changes in the presentation. Having found that the residents of the Bitterroot Valley can distinguish fact from fancy, those who are truly the proponents (follow the money), have decided on  simultaneous approaches. This having been done to secure the extensive profits present.

One approach is straightforward on the surface.  Ask the Governor to agree to an arrangement enabling establishment of the proposition and if refused, simply issue an Executive Order and it’s a done deal.  

The Club Approach.
A second approach is that of Lamination.  Make the proposition appear to reflect due concern for the public issues while, in fact, presenting a blueprint assuring success.  The resources available to the proponents make available to them all available means to the practice lamination to new heights.

The Sneak Approach.
The introduction of references unknown and not easily obtained is a good one.

Add to that layer the use of terms not common to public communications.

The introduction of time requirements provides yet another layer.

Make promises that are absent any element of truth or intent.

The possibilities are endless.  The point to be made is that the use of a deceitful, misleading technique, is in evidence.  Its purpose is to avoid accurate analysis within the allotted time and cause adoption through default.

On the surface it would appear that a proposition, made in good faith, was adopted as the result of public failure to either respond in a timely manner or sheer neglect.

Both manipulations are in use.  If one doesn’t work there is always the backup plan. The responsibility to prevent this transfer of value to faceless individuals is upon those who would suffer the loss.

If the Valley residents fail to respond effectively it would constitute a default. They will have decided that all they represent is not of a value sufficient to warrant its defense.