Yet another example

[Rich Puchalsky <rpuchalsky@att.net>]

Carolyn Offutt writes:
"Rich responded with an example of seeking data from EPA - and access to data is, indeed, one of those tools that I was considering.

I think that Friday's topic of Assistance fits this subject best. Anybody want to add suggestions about how to use tools and technology to assist in providing public information?"

I think that this is a great example of the kind of communication that usually occurs with EPA.  Carolyn Offutt asked us what kind of tools would be useful in providing access to Superfund information.  I responded that tools were useless without data, and that important data was being withheld by EPA, backing up my comment with a long story.  The response is "access to data is, indeed, one of the tools I was considering."

Well, for the specific PRP information I was writing about, there was access to that data back in 1993.  There no longer is.  So is considering providing access to it once again considered to be an advance?

And let me make explicit what seemingly was not understood last time.  A tool, such as a map, graph, video, etc., is another way of presenting data, or information.  If EPA is not willing to release the data, they will not be willing to make tools that release the data.  In this situation, more and more fancy tools will be made, all of them re-presenting the same sanitized and restricted data.  I do not consider this to be anything but EPA marking time and hoping that people won't notice that important data is actually being withheld.

But so far this is a classic example of public participation.  It generally goes like this:

Step 1:  EPA person asks focussed question.

Step 2:  Member of the public answers, turning the topic to their own concerns, not the exact subject of the focussed question.

Step 3:  EPA person says that wasn't what they were asking about, responds minimally, re-asks focussed question.

Step 4:  Member of the public says that EPA's original question seems to lead away from important matters of public concern, re-presents original comment.

We'll see how the conversation goes from here.  Generally it ends with either silence from the EPA side or a reiteration of Step 3.  After which we get:

Step 5:  Member of the public realizes that EPA's pretense of listening to the public was a sham, goes on and does something useful with their time.