RE: EPA's evolving role - 2-way communication & trust

[Emily Green <emily.green@sierraclub.org>]

I'm sure that many others will have ideas in response to your questions.  I can only say that it is difficult, once trust is lost in a community, to go back and fix the damage.  It seems much easier to learn from past experiences and revise the way EPA and other agencies approach community involvement.

>From a community perspective, the agency should (in no particular order):
- get people involved early in the process, at the very beginning, long before any decisions had been made;
- keep in touch often to discuss progress and get input;
- use an independent facilitator;
- set ground rules for the process at the beginning that emphasize respect for all participants and their views;
- establish milestones along the way to provide both accountability and an opportunity to celebrate progress;
- be open, making all decisions transparent, talking openly about trade-offs, conflicting views, regulatory/statutory constraints, etc;
- make sure that all sectors of the community are adequately and accurately represented -- that they are getting feedback that really represents the community at large.

I'm sure this is not a comprehensive list, but these are some of the major issues that stood out after the Sierra Club and two other Great Lakes environmental organizations did a survey of community experiences with and involvement in Great Lakes sediment cleanups.  Sometimes these issues do get very emotional -- rightly so -- almost every site is in someone's backyard.  It seems that setting up an open, transparent, inclusive, respectful process from the beginning is one way of allowing everyone's concerns to be aired and addressed without necessarily de-railing the process.