Discussion Summary: July 10, 2001

Agenda: Introductions and Goals of the Public Involvement Policy

Dialogue moderator Bob Carlitz asked participants to introduce themselves and share their prior experience with the EPA or at the state or local level, why they chose to participate in this dialogue, and what they hope to gain. Furthermore, he requested comments on the completeness of the goals for public involvement in EPA's draft Public Involvement Policy.

Approximately 975 participants from every state, and some U.S. territories and other countries registered for the 10-day discussion. Approximately 170 messages were posted to today's discussion.

Note: Postings appearing by 8:00 PM Eastern time appear in today's summary.

Participants' Introductions: Experiences with EPA, Reasons for Participation, Anticipated Accomplishments

• Host and panelist Patricia Bonner, EPA's lead staff person for the Public Involvement Policy, encouraged participants to share their experiences and knowledge that will enhance the implementation of this policy.

• The participants represented a broad range of organizations: federal, state and local agencies; community organizations; educational facilities; citizen activist groups; libraries; animal rights groups; non-profit environmental and wildlife groups; and research, policy and advocacy organizations. Several participants represented the interests of tribal groups, immigrant populations, people of color, small communities, and low income groups.

• The participants included engineers, environmental consultants, activists, political consultants, librarians, educators, university professors, scientists, students, planners, public involvement specialists, systems experts, lawyers, mediators, facilitators, and interested citizens.

• The participants have involved themselves in diverse environmental arenas including air and water quality standards, hazardous and solid waste management, permitting, citizen involvement, citizen work groups, natural resource defense, mining, environmental decision-making, Brownfields assistance, military environmental problems, small community issues, pesticide programs, ethical treatment of animals, Superfund enforcement, planning, environmental justice, zoning, wetland regulation, civil rights, wastewater treatment.

• These individuals joined the Dialogue for various reasons including a desire to observe, learn, and share.

Comments on Completeness of Goals for Public Involvement

Some participants viewed the goals as laudable, thorough, and broad in scope, while others thought them vague, incomplete, too numerous, and paternalistic. Several key points about the goals are highlighted here.

• One panelist presented a thesis for meeting the goals of the Public Involvement Policy by "a seamless, unified national facility registry that provides basic permit application, renewal, and enforcement information for all EPA and State delegated sites." Such a registry would break down barriers to public involvement and effective government.

• Equal access to EPA information, in particular, information available via the Internet was of concern. Participation for people without access to computers or high-speed internet connections could be limited. Indigenous communities, and low income and working class communities will be disproportionately left out of any communication strategies focusing primarily on electronic distribution of information. This goal needs to foster effective access to information.

• Mention using EPA resources, especially agency or third-party facilitation and mediation services, to assist as needed with public participation processes.

• Acknowledge that much of the relevant information from the public is contained in narrative formats (stories). Incorporate a requirement that public involvement processes account for this information and weigh it with the technical and scientific perspectives.

• Include a goal of providing opportunities for dialogue in order to increase trust, understanding of diverse viewpoints, and collaborative problem-solving.

• It is important to ensure the success of real and continued public involvement. Ensure EPA does not solicit information on issues already decided.

• Ensure EPA communicates to the public about how its input affected the Agency's decisions; the public wants to make sure their participation makes a difference.

• Ensure EPA communicates where it is truly constrained in its discretion and where public input can make a real difference in decision making outcomes.

• Acknowledge that shared decision-making between EPA and the public is not always possible due to existing laws and regulations and Agency mandates, so as not to raise unrealistic expectations. Even in these situations, exchange of information and solicitation of public input can be valuable

• Encourage real discussion among public citizens that is informal, at their request and convenience and time scale, rather than at the request of the government.

• Add a goal that provides the public with the means to hold EPA accountable to these goals and to the spirit and letter of the Public Involvement Policy.

• Encourage the use of community working groups and citizen advisory boards to promote discussion among members of the public. Support collaborative coalitions wherein groups work out their differences.

• Make sure stakeholder involvement activities are sufficiently budgeted, planned for, and incorporated into project schedules.

• Address building and maintaining effective relationships to foster successful stakeholder involvement.

• Ensure adequate support, commitment and enforcement from the highest levels of the EPA. Only when top management commits itself to a policy of openness and forthrightness and requires the same of its staff will the public actually benefit from this policy.

• Distinguish between "the public" and "stakeholders" and discuss the broad spectrum of public involvement opportunities -- from public education to collaborative agreement-seeking processes to resolving disputes.

• Include a goal to enfranchise those who are otherwise marginalized.

• Establish a goal of improving the efficiency of decision-making by constructively engaging all stakeholder groups from the outset.

• Rephrase each goal statement as a desired directional outcome. Goals are about "what" is to be achieved; the "how" of getting there is through strategies and actions. Use more concise language and active voice and eliminate "legalese".

• Establish a goal of making better decisions which is almost always an outcome of a good public process.

Each day's summary is intended to capture the essence of the conversation. While this summary contains the highlights of participants' comments, more comprehensive information may be found in the individual postings. I welcome your comments on the summaries.

Sally Hedman, Reporter