RE: States' best practices: challenges

[Eileen Ringnalda <eileen.ringnalda@searbrown.com>]

Mary,
You have raised two problems that are constantly faced in public involvement.  My abbreviated interpretation is:

1. Legal (or other) restrictions that are "givens" or realities that cannot be changed without a long process of bureaucratic change.

2. Public concerns and comments that reach beyond the scope of the agency's project and/or purpose.


I have a few thoughts on these challenges...

1. Clearly communicate what is required (the restrictions) and redirect public involvement activities and comments to areas that can be influenced by public comment.

I practice public involvement in relation to transportation projects, and I have learned that you often must begin with the givens -- i.e. a project *will* happen (public input is not about whether or not to proceed with a project); given that, we invite public comments on the areas that would benefit from public input or *how* the project should proceed -- i.e. specific features of the project such as alignment, intersection or interchange configurations, number of lanes, width of shoulder.  

As decisions are made about the roadway design, we can still invite public comment about other details -- i.e. "Based on technical analysis and public input, X is proposed as the preferred interchange design; at this point in the process, we would like your input on landscape options"

I'm not sure what restrictions you face with the EPA, but I would encourage you to identify the areas that have some flexibility and clearly communicate what decisions the public can participate in.

2. This challenge reminds us that although agencies are compartmentalized, people's lives are not.  If you anticipate comments of a particular nature that you cannot address, invite a representative to be present at the public meetings from an organization who can receive and respond to the anticipated comments.  Individuals can be directed to that representative.

More often, however, comments out of the scope of your project come up unexpectedly.  I think that the individual's concerns still need to be accepted and recorded in order to build and maintain trust.  Explain what you can address and what aspects of the comment fall outside the realm of your project.  Make a suggestion about what the individual can do about the additional concern or even offer to make a note of it and pass it along to another agency or organization.

Example (again transportation related): A resident expresses concern about speeding traffic on his or her neighborhood street at a public meeting about a major roadway through a commercial zone.

I can work on redirecting the conversation back to the project at hand, but it would be courteous to acknowledge that speeding is a valid concern and then ask if they have contacted their local community council about their concern?  This subtly suggests that they take the concern to a local authority.  Sometimes the suggestion needs to be more explicit.

Another option is to reply, "I'll make a note of that.  I'm in regular contact with Jane Doe on the Evergreen Community Council, and she would be interested in hearing your concern."  Of course, this option requires good partnering relationships with other agencies and you should make this kind of suggestion only if you sincerely intend to follow-up with it.

This has become a rather lengthy reply, but I hope it has some practical insight.  Both problems can be negotiated with some communication skills ... I don't want to suggest political "spin," but strategic and purposeful communication that helps you and interested stakeholders accomplish your interests and goals.

Eileen Ringnalda