RE: Identifying the Interested Public

[Terry J. Harris <tjharris@abs.net>]

The discussions so far have been very interesting, and I wish I had more time to participate more fully. But such are the worries of real world volunteer activists. 

Some of what follows in this message is exerpted from formal comments I drafted for the Sierra Club on the proposed EPA policy. 

-----
	The proposed EPA Policy purports to recognize the importance of this particular [identifying the public] element of the public participation process, but other than the development of a "contact list" the Policy fails to provide much in the way of accomplishing any improvement. Indeed this may be the weakest part of the proposed Policy, especially in terms of low income and minority communities. 

	The reliance on contact lists inherently guarantees that participation will be limited to those individuals who find their way onto the lists. Contact lists are inevitably too narrow. Moreover, despite the fact the Policy wishes to "ensure that all points of view are represented on the lists," the development of such lists tends to presuppose what those interests are. Sorting or generating lists by category of interest or by geographic area, as the Policy suggests for example, will always be underinclusive. In practice, such contact lists are heavily weighted to interests with the wherewithal to position themselves on the lists. Industry, for example, with lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants know which lists are being created and for what purposes. Community members, however, find themselves on such lists typically only by happenstance, and usually much later in the process. The bottom line is that agencies should work on the presumption that many more persons than can be represented on a contact list may have interests in or may be affected by a decision. 

	While some lists are underinclusive, others are sometimes so broad in subject matter that community members are inundated with so much information and so many requests for participation that sorting through it all is too time consuming and difficult. Indeed this is a major problem for underserved communities. In such communities, where participation rates are low, agencies look to the few individuals who are participating and ask them to do more rather than reach out to a wider community. 

	In practice, both types of lists, underinclusive and overinclusive, are updated infrequently. And in both cases, the methods for the development of contact lists tend to be event oriented (persons who attended prior meetings, for example) or essentially word-of-mouth. Most lists are retired when the proceedings relating to the initial purpose are completed. For these practical reasons, contact lists must not be the full extent of identification process. 

	Also, the Policy should not assume that "lesser actions" do not warrant identification of interested parties. Instead, interested parties should be allowed to decide whether the actions are in fact minor. These are precisely the situations in which distrust of the agency will fester.

	The Policy should be more accommodating of alternate methods of identifying members of the public with interests. But it should also be more accommodating in allowing broader interests to be aired. For example, persons wishing to promote more holistic approaches to environmental problems are just as much "stakeholders" as are industrial trade associations, yet the Policy makes the express point that "stewardship" and "sustainability" are issues addressed with other outlets for participation. The Policy should not be so limiting.