Engaging the Public in the Mitigation Planning Proceess... E. Franklin Dukes, Ph.D. UVA Institute for Environmental Negotiation

Engaging the Publicin the

Mitigation Planning Proceess...

E. Franklin Dukes, Ph.D.

UVA Institute for Environmental Negotiation

Workshop Guidelines

• Please participate - this is an interactive exercise

• We invite you to be open to new ideas to deal with old and new problems

• Share your expertise as well as your questions• Have fun!

Introductions

In Groups of 3 or 4:1. Name

2. Where you work/ what you do

3. One challenge and one success you have had in mitigation planning

What We Will Do...

• Your Challenges• Why Public Involvement?• Core Values of Public Involvement• Keys to Authentic Public Involvement• Different Processes for Different Goals• Building Consensus vs. Opposition

Challenges

In Groups of 3 or 4:1. What specific issues in mitigation planning

occur in your jurisdiction?

2. What kinds of issues most need public involvement and support?

3. What challenges do you face in public involvement?

Why Public Involvement?

• Gain insights into views of stakeholders• Gain information to improve planning• Educate key publics• Build legitimacy for activities• Help allay controversy• Foster commitment to implementing decisions• Build community capacity

Core Valuesof Authentic Public Involvement

• People should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.

• Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.

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

These are from the International Association for Public Participation - IAP2

Core Valuesof Public Involvement

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

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

Core Valuesof Public Involvement

• The public participation process communicates to participants how their input was, or was not, utilized.

• The public participation process provides participants with the information needed to participate in a meaningful way.

Keys toAuthentic Public Involvement

• Begin Early• Invite Participation from All Stakeholders

• Bring People Face-to-Face To Talk

• Seek Solutions that Work for All Key Interests

• Use High-Quality, Legitimate Information

• Focus on Understanding - Issues and People

• Design the Right Process for the Situation

3 Phases of Authentic Public Involvement

I. Conceiving

II. Conducting

III. Completing

3 Phases of Authentic Public Involvement

I. Conceiving goals and ways to meet those goals– Assessment

– What are the issues? Who are the stakeholders?– What outcomes do you want to achieve?

– Design– What kind of process will achieve the desired outcomes?

– Convening– Establishing a clear purpose, goals, plans, logistics

Processes forAuthentic Public Involvement

PBJ to Three Course Meal• PBJ: public hearing followed by decision

• Three Course Meal: community involvement in issue identification, development of options, crafting of decision, and monitoring of implementation

Processes for Authentic Public Involvement

…lesser shared power to greater shared power

• Issue Scoping

• Public Meetings

• Public Workshops

• Community Dialogues

• Collaborative Problem-Solving

A Spectrum of Group Processes

PROCESS TYPE GOALS SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

SINGLE-PARTY

MEETING

• Var y by group • Strategi c planning

• Organizational development

MULT -I PARTYPROCESSES

Issue Scoping • Assess intere st ofparties, key issues,prospects forresolution

• Build ba se ofinformation

• Stud y Commission

• White Paper

• Conflict Assessment

Public Meetings • Provide information/citizen education

• He ar concerns

• Public notice hearing

• Public notice meeting

A Spectrum of Group Processes

PublicWorkshops

• Provide informatio / n citizeneducation• He ar concerns• Build shared understanding• Develop ideas/ options

• Visioning Workshops• Design Charrettes

PublicDialogues

• Provide informatio / n education• He ar concerns• Develop ideas/ options• Build shared understanding• Build relationships

• Community conversations• Study Circles

CollaborativeProblemSolving

• Provide informatio / n education• He ar concerns• Develop ideas/ options• Build shared understanding• Build relationships• M ake decisions and/orrecommendations• Build commitmen t forimplementation

• Adviso ry Committees andCommissions

• Mediation• Consensus Building• "Partnering" construction

workshops

Public Meetings The PBJs... Lowest Cost/ Time

Goals:• Provide citizens with information/ education• Identify citizen concerns


Tools for enhancing interaction: • Shared planning and recruitment• Small group discussions• Surveys• Facilitated Q & A beyond 3-minute speeches


Example:– County Hog Farms– Interview stakeholders beforehand– Offer time for each perspective– Provide informal setting with circle seating

Goals:• Provide citizens with information/ education• Identify citizen concerns• Build shared understanding• Develop ideas and options

Public WorkshopsThe Box Lunches...Mid-level

Tools for enhancing citizen interaction:

• Shared planning and recruitment• Small groups• Surveys• Multi-media design aids• Followup groups


Example:– Landfill: future use of closed cells

– Meet with citizens to ask their goals and interests and invite

their participation

– Engage student ideas

– Opportunities for large group sharing

– Facilitated small group discussions

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.



Example:• Shenandoah “Big Gem” brownfields site

redevelopment– Series of community-wide meetings, presentations,

facilitated small group discussions– Training citizens in conflict resolution and facilitation

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Community DialoguesThe Box Lunches...Mid-level

Goals:• Provide citizens with information/ education• Identify citizen concerns

• Build shared understanding• Develop ideas and options• Build relationships


Tools for enhancing citizen interaction:

• Focus on understanding, not debate

• Provide balanced information

• Trusted convenor and facilitator(s)

• Ground rules promote civil discussion

• Recognize that differences do not have to mean enmity


Example:– Public Conversations

• Siting of Circuit Court: Required public referendum

• Series of 4 open meetings• Facilitated presentations followed by Q/A• All perspectives given opportunity for

presentations; prearranged by facilitator to ensure balance in any one meeting

CollaborativeProblem Solving

The 3-Course Meals… Quality, Time, Cost

• Provide citizens with information/ education• Identify citizen concerns

• Build shared understanding• Develop ideas and options• Build relationships • Make decisions or recommendations• Build commitment for implementation



Collaborative Problem-Solving Processes:• Mediation• Consensus Building• Community Collaboratives• Policy Roundtables & Dialogues• Citizen Task Forces (Advisory)• Steering Committees



Example of Mediation• Rural neighborhood

– Community water supply in Court receivership for seven years

– 4-month process of facilitated open community meetings, small group discussions, and telephone calls

– Agreement developed, approved by Court, and implemented



Example of Consensus Building– Bryan Park Interchange Advisory

Committee• Long-standing dispute over 3-highway

intersection area and Park• 25-member representative group• 22 meetings and 3 public meetings• Consensus recommendations endorsed by

VDOT



Example of Combined Processes• Fairfax Co. Little Hunting Creek Watershed

– Public involved at all stages to: 1) identify key issues, 2) frame the problem(s) to be addressed, 3) propose solutions and strategies, 4) investigate approaches and feasibility to achieve proposed solutions

– Advisory Committee work with consultants– 4 public meetings to scope issues, draft ideas, review draft

and final plans– Interactive web site, brochures, fact sheets, and

“watershed academy”

Common Obstacles to Authentic Public Involvement

• Time• Money• Political will• Parties not willing to participate• Lack of respected convenor and facilitator• ???

Key Lessons for Authentic Public Involvement

By groups of 3 or 4:• What are key lessons for authentic public

involvement for mitigation planning in your jurisdiction?

Actions That Build Opposition

• Downplay the significance of problem Refuse to engage the public

Deny any mistakes

Defend your position as the only “right” position

Actions That Build Opposition (cont.)

Deny the validity of opposing views

Attack those who oppose you

Obscure the issues with jargon

Make unjustified assumptions

Fail to follow through (rhetoric without action)

Strategies to Build Consensusvs. Creating Opposition

1. Offer Access to Information vs. Limit Flow of Information

2. Involve Immediately and Offer Adequate Time vs. Stall and Impose Unjustified Deadlines


3. Begin With Needs, Encourage Options vs. Begin With a Solution, Limit Options

4. Be Inclusive Vs. Limit Participation and Exclude


5. Focus on Issues and Respect Dignity vs. (De)-Personalize Opposition

6. Accept Responsibility vs. Blame Others for Troubles

7. Create Culture of Openness, Inclusion, Creativity, Respect vs. Make This Business as Usual

Behavior to Build Consensus vs. Creating Opposition

1. Listen Carefully vs. Be Inattentive– Common listening problems:

• interrupting; • poor body language; • offering unwanted advice; • reading minds; • turning the discussion to your own situation; • belittling others' concerns (or comparing them

unfavorably to your own).


2. Seek and Acknowledge Source of Concerns vs. Seek Hidden Agenda

Examples: "They're just in it for the money"; "They oppose any action anywhere"; "You [developers / environmentalists / liberals / right-wingers] always [say that / do that / cheat / lie / don't care]".


3. Speak to be Understood vs. Use Jargon• ”Insider" language can bewilder outsiders.

• Such language can communicate elitism, intimidation, or indifference.

• Common problems: – Overuse of acronyms (e.g., EPA, EIS, EIA);

– Overly technical presentations;

– Assumption that others share your understanding.


4. Commit to Answer Questions vs. Avoid Controversy

• Common mistakes: – Send an unprepared person to the meeting;

– Hide information without good reason;

– Avoid/evade potential and actual opponents;

– No followup despite promises.


5. Be Prepared vs. Just Show Up• Common mistakes:

– Uninformed representatives;

– Unworkable meeting facilities;

– Not checking in with public beforehand;

– Forget to bring important materials.

When is a Facilitator/Mediator Needed?

• When the parties distrust one another

• When a lead agency (e.g. local government) or the person convening the discussion is not perceived as being impartial

• When confidentiality may be important and parties may need to be able to entrust the facilitator with confidential information

When is a Facilitator/Mediator Needed?

• When everybody at the table has a stake in the outcome and needs an opportunity to advocate for particular interests

• When the issues are complex and a systematic process is needed for discussion

Roles & Responsibilities of a Facilitator/Mediator

• Assess the situation

• Design the process

• Manage relationships and communication

• Train participants in consensus skills

• Facilitate meetings, prepare for meetings, keep summaries

• Fact finding

• Mediate specific issues, including private caucuses to clarify interests and positions

• Monitor implementation and revision of agreement

One Resource: Community Mediation

In many communities across Virginia there already exists a medium to begin to address these issues and to devise creative solutions to problems. This medium is the community mediation center. Mediation centers have:– Roots and connections within the community– Trained, experienced volunteers who have helped

transform destructive conflict– A people-friendly approach especially critical in

organizations and communities where people will have ongoing relationships and interaction

Lessons Learned

QUESTIONS?

COMMENTS?

Helpful Resources

– Best Practices for Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes (1997); $10/copy, (202) 667-9700 E-mail: [email protected]

– A Practical Guide To Consensus, by The Policy Consensus Initiative (1999): $15/copy, 701/ 224-0588

DATE OF FIRST

CONTACTDESCRIPTION OF ISSUE

Contact initiated by center or party?

Description of Party

Time spent on contact

(hours)Referral Source

IEN Consulted (estimated hours in consultation)

TYPE OF DISPUTE

STAKEHOLDERS - Check All That Apply

# OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN

PROCESS

GOALS OF CONVENER/CLIENT(S) CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

GOALS OF THE PROCESS MET? DID THE PROCESS

RESULT IN A RESOLUTION OF ISSUES?

PROCESS USED - Check all that apply

DATE PROCESS OR INTERVENTION

BEGAN

DATE PROCESS

ENDED

ESTIMATED TOTAL STAFF HOURS FOR COMPLETE

CASE

ADDITIONAL COMMENTSWHO PAID FOR

THE INITIATIVE?

DID THE FEE COVER STAFF

HOURS AND COSTS? (Y/N)

DID THE FEE MORE THAN COVER

STAFF HOURS AND COSTS? (Y/N)

IMPACTS OF THE PROCESS? (e.g. training,

referrals)

ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUNTEER HOURS FOR

COMPLETE CASE

Local Gov'tState Gov'tFederal Gov'tIndustryIndividualsConsumer Gps.Civic Non-ProfitLocal BusinessEnv. Non-ProfitOther Consensus BuildingDialogueGp. FacilitationIssue ScopingMediationPublic ForumPublic MeetingTrainingStrategic PlanningOther Identify StakeholdersIdentify OptionsIdentify IssuesUnderstand Issues

and

PerspectivesPublic Hearing of

all ViewpointsPublic EducationObtain Public

SupportDevelopment of RecommendationsDevelopment of

AgreementOther

DATE OF FIRST

CONTACTDESCRIPTION OF ISSUE Contact initiated by

center or party? Description of

Party

Time spent on contact

(hours)Referral Source

IEN Consulted (estimated hours in consultation)

TYPE OF DISPUTE# OF PEOPLE

PARTICIPATING IN PROCESS

GOALS OF THE PROCESS MET? DID THE PROCESS

RESULT IN A RESOLUTION OF ISSUES?

DATE PROCESS OR INTERVENTION

BEGAN

DATE PROCESS

ENDED

ESTIMATED TOTAL STAFF HOURS FOR COMPLETE

CASE

ADDITIONAL COMMENTSWHO PAID FOR THE INITIATIVE?

DID THE FEE COVER STAFF HOURS AND

COSTS? (Y/N)

DID THE FEE MORE THAN COVER

STAFF HOURS AND COSTS? (Y/N)

IMPACTS OF THE PROCESS? (e.g. training,

referrals)

ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUNTEER HOURS FOR

COMPLETE CASE

Month/DayYear Center Party If IEN not consulted, type N/A Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year

YES, all goals were met

NO, none of the goals were

met

Partially - some goals were met

YES NO YES NO

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

Documents

Engaging the Public in the Mitigation Planning Proceess... E. Franklin Dukes, Ph.D. UVA Institute for Environmental Negotiation