Introducing myself

[David James <james.david@epa.gov>]

Hello everyone -- I'm David James, an on-site contractor working for a year in the EPA's Region 4 office in Atlanta, Georgia. It's  pretty hot today here!

I work in the Federal Facilities Branch, a part of the Waste Division that oversees the army bases, NASA sites, and the Energy Department's nuclear weapons production facilities here in the South. I am a budget analyst of the DOE's cleanup budget, and I am seeking to find ways in which the EPA can help foster more effective public involvement in the formation of cleanup budget priorities at the Savannah River Site, SC, and Oak Ridge, TN.

I've just skimmed all the intro messages up to now, and I'm excited to see the diversity of opinion already represented. 

About my goals and perspective, I'll say that while it's a little "meta" [meaning self-consciously reflexive] to engage in a structured public participation exercise designed to comment on a  public involvement plan, I think this method holds great promise and is intrinsically interesting, regardless of outcome. I'm glad it's being tried.

I'm also glad that someone from SUNY Buffalo is participating. The most profound thinker on meaningful public participation I know of is Margaret Shannon, who's also at SUNY Buffalo. In a previous life, I was quite involved in advocacy efforts to affect  the decisions of another federal agency, the USDA Forest Service, and Professor Shannon's writings focus on that effort.

About public participation itself, I will no doubt over the next ten days find myself contributing obvious truisms along these lines:  

**  members of the public will participate if they think that by their participation they can change the outcome of an agency decision. Nothing in the world can convince someone to participate if they become convinced, correctly or not, that the OUTCOME of the decision-making process will be unaffected by their participation. And we as convenors of public involvment opportunities shouldn't expect the public to bother participating  unless we can certify that their involvement WILL make some difference. Though they sometimes have that effect, public meetings are NOT a form of group therapy, or a means of legitimizing a pre-made decision. 

**  more effective information dissemination is only the first step of meaningful public involvement. The public not only has a right to know, but a right to inform. The complex world is not divided into decisionmakers who know what they are doing and stakeholders who don't. We can all learn from each other. Every public meeting is a scoping meeting.

The International Association for Public Participation, a relatively young professional society, has developed and promulgated "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation" which I think will stand the test of time, and which I paste verbatim here:

1.  The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.

2.  Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision. 

3.  The public participation process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of all participants. 

4.   The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected. 

5.   The public participation process involves participants in defining how they participate. 

6.   The public participation process communicates to participants how their input affected the decision. 

7.   The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. 

I think points 5 and 6 bear especial attention by the EPA during this dialogue.

David James
james.david@epa.gov