RE: Criteria for policy effectiveness/success

[Nathan Cooley <nathan.cooley@pca.state.mn.us>]

Many folks still seem confused about public involvement. 

On a scale of strongly-agree to strongly-disagree, only a few opponents are motivated enough to try to stop an action--or find a compromise.  EPA needn't worry about the public that already agrees with an action, or even the public that is unhappy but is willing to stand aside and let the train pass.  

EPA needs to focus on those (0-3%) of good folks who so strongly oppose an EPA action--based on legitimate "value conflicts" or monetary interests--that they will lie down on the tracks to stop the train.  With such passion about an issue, strong opponents will pull out all the stops.  Public involvement success can be measured in fewer after-the-fact law suits and more successful project implementation.

Success results when EPA engages the "over-my-dead-body" opponents and builds what is called "informed consent".  Occasionally, EPA can find a compromise to appease opponents.  Often, strong issues cannot be satisfied.  Still, strong opponents commonly agree to stand aside if EPA demonstrates a legitimate duty to act on behalf of the greater public good (no kidding).  If EPA does this well, it will succeed.  

Here are the key steps (for any proposer):
*· Establish your own legitimate role and purpose for a proposed action.
*· Be up front and clearly publish the most controversial aspects of your proposal.
*· Seek out the "over-my-dead-body" opponents from your "public"-wherever they are.
*· Attempt to compromise and build consensus with your strongest opponents-to the extent practicable.
*· If unable to gain consensus (an opponent's ability to live with an action-not necessarily to support it), help them see that in the end, you are the legitimate official from the legitimate agency to discharge a legitimate duty-on behalf of a greater public-good.  This process is called building informed consent.
*· Publish all resulting conflicts, compromises and actions.