SEP -5  1984
             This Communications training program is an initiative of
        the Agency Administrator.  It was designed by the Office of
        Public Affairs to provide EPA field personnel with tools neces-
        sary to communicate with the public in difficult community

             The training is also EPA's first attempt to give its field
        personnel practical assistance in communicating about risk to
        a public concerned about issues such as the quality of their
        drinking water or what the long-term impacts are of short-term
        exposure to  various toxicants.

             The training program also attempts to give field personnel
        some hands-on  experience in dealing with tough questions from
        the media and  citizens as well as some innovative techniques for
        holding  better meetings.

             This Communications Handbook is intended as a reference.
        It includes  the presentations made during this training as well
        as additional  materials which may be useful to you in implement-
        ing community  involvement in your daily work.

             EPA's management  clearly recognizes that you are its first
        line of  contact for most of the public.   Citizens see you as "EPA."
        How you  come across to them,  in large measure,  will determine  the
        Agency's success.   It's not an easy task;  this training has'been
        designed to help  you.
                                        Best  wishes,
                                      /XeiiTi  C.  Statler
                                     ^Office of  Public  Affairs

                        COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING
             Instructors:  Merle Lefkoff and Frank Corrado
              AND INSTRUCTORS

                  —V ideo tape—

8:50 a.m.     INTRODUCTION

                  —"Root of the Problem"—Videotape
                    of confrontations with citizens

                  —Decisions—technical or political?

9:50 a.m.     Coffee break


                   —Active Listening

                   —Congruent Sending

11:35 a.m.    Brown bag working lunch

              HEALTH EFFECTS

                   —Developing Credibility

                   —Responding to Difficult Questions


                   —Small Group Meetings

                   —Large Group Meetings

                   —Effective Meeting Techniques


                   —The Prince Analysis System

5:15 p.m      EVALUATION
Jo Cooper
William D.
Frank Corrado

Merle Lefkoff

Merle Lefkoff
Frank Corrado
Merle Lefkoff
Merle Lefkoff
Frank Corrado

 FRANK CORRADO— Currently is a consultant to the  Office  of
 External Affairs on community involvement.   Earlier he served
 as a consultant to the Administrator on internal  com-
 munications within the Agency.  From 1969 to 1979 Corrado
 was Director of Public Affairs in Region 5  for EPA and
 a  predecessor agency.  From 1979 until mid-1982 he was on
 the faculty of the Kellogg Graduate School  of Management
 at Northwestern University where he taught  communications
 and telecommunications.   He continues there as an adjunct
 associate professor.   In  mid-1982 he joined the consulting
 firm of  Hay Associates and the following year opened his
 own firm,  Communications  for Managers.   Specializing in
 internal communications,  organizational culture and train-
 ing,  Corrado has Hartmarx Corp.,  Serale Consumer  Products
 and Borg-Warner among  his clients.   He  is the author of  a
 book,  "Media for Managers,"  published last  year.

 MERLE S.  LEFKOFF—Is a principal, in a consulting  firm of Lef-
 koff,  Slaughter and Cardwell,  which advises government agen-
 cies  and business organizations on  community planning in a   "
 participatory context.  She  has had extensive experience in
 training  government employees  to conduct public participation
 activities  and to enable  them  to learn  various techniques and
 skills for  better communication,  interaction and  cooperation
 with  their  respective  constituency.   She has designed and con-
 ducted training courses for  the U.S.  Department of Energy, the
 the Army  Corps of Engineers, and the  South  Carolina and  Missis-
 sippi, the  most recent clients.

 Dr. Lefkoff  works out  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  where she
 is  President  of the Board of  the National Center  for Collabo-
 rative Planning and Community  Services.   She is currently
 assisting:   the State  of  Massachusetts  on siting  criteria for
 a possible  low-level radioactive  waste  repository by designing
 and facilitating  a series os state-wide meetings  with environ-
mentalists,  waste generators,  academic  researchers  and public
 officials;  the  State of Mississippi  in  the  design of a conflict
management plan in anticipation  of  nomination as  a  federal high-
 level nuclear  waste repository  site;  and is consulting with the
Army Corps and  the States  of New  York and New Jersey on  the
 design and delivery of public  access  computerized data systems.
 Dr. Lefkoff  is  a  consultant  to  the  EPA  administrator in  Wash-

      —William D.  Ruckelshaus


                               —William D.  Ruckelshaus

 Good morning.   You  are  about  to take  part  in  a training
 session which  will  be extended to over  500  program people
 in  all ten regions  during  the  next few  months.  We are
 making this commitment  of  resources because of my
 conviction that EPA cannot effectively  administer the
 environmental  laws  of this nation without  a larger degree
 of  understanding and participation by the  public.

    We have made substantial efforts in  this direction before,
 but it's my view that we can and must do more, not only
 to explain our  policies better to people, but to listen
 to  them as well.

   This is not  a one-shot  operation or  a public relations
 campaign.  I want you to get in the habit of working
 routinely with  citizens and involving them  in environmental
 decisionmaking. From now on that has  got to be a basic
 part of your job description.

   Let people know  that our objective is not to impose
 prefabricated solutions but to share  our knowledge.  Hide
 nothing.   Use plain English.   Explain our view of the health
 risks they may  face and any potential damage to property
or the environment.  Tell  them what we  have done to control
or remedy the problem without losing patience.

    Acknowledge  that  their  concerns  are  real, but convince
 them  that  you want to  hear from  them and you know  their
 perceptions and concerns are legitimate.
    Get  into these communities and get comments and
 opinions—no matter  how extreme  or  emotional.  You'll
 find  that  some people  will be able  to provide technical
 expertise  and can comment  dispassionately, constructively
 and even authoritatively on a host  of matters.
    Next/ solicit citizen comments on all follow-up activity.
 Crank those comments into  your final decisions whenever
 possible.  If you can't, say why.
    Prove to the people that their views count and  that
 they can have an influence  in the decisions that affect them.
 Stress  that every clean-up program must be acceptable to
 the community as a whole.
    Remember that you are handing people the psychological
equivalent of a shovel which they can use to dig themselves
out of what they see as a  serious threat to their well-
being.  It's a fact  that when people participate in solving
problems, they don't feel victimized.  They are more
likely to accept the tradeoffs and compromises that have
to be made to get a job done.  They'll be willing to work
with you instead of against you.
   So democratization of the regulatory process ultimately

 makes your job easier,  not harder—and that will speed the

 general improvement of  the environment.

    I  look  forward to hearing about the success of the

xcommunications training program.   You have  my best wishes

 in  this vital  undertaking.

                 --Robert L. Burke
                   EPA Public Affairs

                                   By:  Robert L. Burke
     Past EPA outreach programs have focused primarily on
  implementation of very specific agency program objectives
  and requirements.
     EPA's "Community Involvement" program has evolved from a
 recognition gained over a 13-year period that several of our
 programs have profound impacts on communities and residents.

     There are certain national and regional examples that
 point up these various community impacts.
     (1)   Transportation control plans in the early 1970's
           which aroused intense feelings about the effects
           of curtailed driving on the economy of downtown
     (2)   Groundwater contamination which has been an
           emotional issue in areas where subsurface
           supplies are the sole drinking water supply.
           This problem is compounded when there is
           no readily available solution.
     (3)   The highly visible community concerns about
           the health and economic impacts of illicit
           and illegal hazardous waste dumps.
     (4)    Decisions involving the siting and permiting
           of new hazardous waste treatment, disposal and
           storage facilities.
     (5)    The often conflicting impacts on community
           growth and water quality of projects under
           the construction grants program.


      (6)    The discovery of  toxic  chemicals  in  the en-
            vironment  of  several  communities  or  the
            effects  of transporting chemical  wastes
            through  communities and large  urban  areas.
      (7)    The  conflicting  impacts of  local  jobs, consumer
            costs,  and  public  health  from  air pollution
            controls  on industry or utilities.
      (8)    Specific  Regional  Examples.   (APPENDIX A)

      I've discovered one  thing as a result of many years at
headquarters, a  four-year assignment with a  state government,
and details to the regional offices in Boston and Philadelphia,

      When the several  issues  I just discussed are considered,

      You in the  regional  offices have the most difficult load
to carry.
     1.   Regions Don't Set Policy:  National decisions
from Washington often serve to leave individual regions
dealing with an unpopular local backlash.    Acid rain in
the northeast, a pesticide decision affecting certain
sunbelt states, a decision to curtail new waste treatment
construction in rapidly growing areas.   The list can go
on indefinitely.

     These national decisions do influence local perceptions
about EPA generally and often in radically different ways.
We are perceived to be OVERBEARING or DODGING an issue.  These
feelings affect the credibility of totally unrelated EPA

     Many state officials perceive one central point about
their own program responsibilities and those of federal
agencies including EPA.  How local governments and citizens
relate to the federal and state professionals they work
with directly influences their perceptions of the programs.



      I've  observed  that EPA  regional  offices have  several
 inherent strenghts  that they can  bring to  bear  on  an
 issue.  It sometimes  seems that regions  either  can't  see
 these strengths or  don't entirely trust  them.

     Let me  give you  some  examples.   In  the state  I worked  in,
 there were several  occasions when joint  action  between  EPA
 and  the state government (or differences)  evolved.  Here is
 what state officials  perceived to be  the strengths of the
 regional office on  each of these  situations.

     1.    Regions As  Environmental Protector;   Despite
 problems in  recent  years,  there has always been a perception by
 state officials that  regional  EPA officials have strong and personal
 commitments  towards environmental  protection. In any  problem in
 volving communities,  this  point is a  strong asset. Working
 for  EPA commands respect from most of the  public.

     2*    Regiona 1  Enforcement Powers; State and local govern-
ments have been made  awa.re of EPA's enforcement powers on many
occasions  and they  are  always concerned  that it can be used again.
This is often the only  thing that goads  them into action.

     3.    Immediate Impacts  On MediaAnd Officials;   A strong
EPA action has an immediate  and usually  positive effect on
most states  and communities.   It  is amazing how strong and
broadly based public  support is for an EPA action that implies
greater environmental protection.

     4.   Prospective Rglje as Outside Mediator t  Because EPA
representatives are perceived somewhat as  outsiders,  they often
can help to  adjust  institutional or turf problems between state
governments  and communities.  Being an outsider fosters the
perception of impartiality on some issues.


      One upshot of this is.that much of what you need to
 communicate  with and  involve  the public already exists
 within your,own regional office.  There are several areas
 you  can go  for assistance in  this regard.

      1.   Regional OPA Office:  (1) press relations and working
 knowledge of media representatives;  (2)  information materials,
 outreach activities;  (3) a focal point for community involvement
 techniques  from work  with the  Superfund Program; (4)  Knowledge
 of constituencies.
      2.   Intergovernmental  Relations/External  Affairs:   know-
 ledge of  and  feedback  from;  (1)  congressional  inquries;
 (2)  local officials;   (3)   state legislators.  (4)  state  and
 local agencies. .
     3.  Professionals  in your own  Program:   There  are
probably others  in  your own  program area  who have dealt
with communities you must work in.
     4.  Other Program Offices;   They  may  have  dealt with
some of the groups you must meet  with.   Look  particularly
for certain air and water programs  that  have  been  working
with states and communities almost  since the  agency  was
formed in 1971.
     I was impressed with the  system  I  found  in  Region  III
for Superfund where there were  informal meetings involving
OPA, Intergovernmental Relations,  the elements and  enforce-
ment office prior to any EPA presence in  an affected  com-
munity.   The collective knowledge  from the various offices
allowed for.a quick and accurate profile  on each area.  . No
one office had the entire picture.

OPERATE IN AND UNDERSTAND COMMUNITY CONDITIONS At)p..-,.••:•.                 J '     '    L


      In  the  last  section,  I described how  strong EPA decisions
 are generally  received  positively at the community  level.  This,
 however, may diminish with time. The state government
 I worked with  had several  long-term advantages over the re-
 gional office  if  differences evolved on a  given issue that
 involved a community or communities.

      1*   Contacts;  State officials by and large had well
 established  contacts with  community groupings and interest
 groups affected by a particular decision.  In a given com-
 munity,  the  state agencies I worked with probably had 10
 contacts for every one  that EPA had.   This is natural.
 But it is a  strong factor  in the long run  if a state has an
 alternative  position and is seeking to influence or accomo-
 date  local groupings.

      2.   Understanding The Political Tejrrain;  State agen-
 cies  are increasingly adept at understanding local attitudes
 because their  strength  and capacity to survive often depend
 on it.
     3.   Evaluating Local Sources;  I will touch a bit more
on this later except that it is one thing to have sources
for information within a community and it is quite another
thing to know how reliable, credible, and influential they are,
By and large, state officials who have worked on various
programs have learned how reliable and credible local sources
and groups are.

     4.   Relations WithLocal Governments;  By nature,
a state government's relations with local government can be
virtually on a day-to-day basis.   They often learn to under-
stand what local priorities are, the political and technical
limitations local governments labor under, and how to reach
accomodation on issues and programs.

     State counterparts understand both your programs and
     affected communities.  They may be your best single
     source for- external information and support.


      I have dwelt on state strengths in terms of community
 involvement for two reasons.    The first is to demonstrate
 that many of them are already applying several of the
 community involvement techniques we will be discussing in
 this training session.   Some do it to strengthen
 their position and credibility within the state and with
 local communities.  Others are doing it simply to survive.
      But there are other sources that can be turned to
 for information if for some reason it isn't practical
 to go to state counterparts.
       I  think most of these other sources will be willing
 to help  if you ask for that help.   You don't have
 to reinvent the wheel to develop an effective community
 relations program.   The work has probably already been
 done  by  someone else.
      1.   Federal  Offices In The  State;     In Rhode Island,
 for  example,  The  Federal Highway Administration runs what
 can  only  be  termed a  comprehensive community relations
 program.   They have been working in the state's 39
 cities and towns  for  at least  two decades.    They don't
 call what they do community involvement,  but in terms of what
 this training sesssion  will discuss,  that is essentially
 what it  is.    Some feel in  EPA that old-line federal agencies
 are  aloof from the public or from communities.    This
 simply is not true.

      2.   State Advisory Groups:    These groupings are formed
 either by the governor  or by various  executive  agencies. They
 meet and  advise on several  issues and programs  including en-
 vironmental ones.   They are often an important state link
 with cities and towns.    They  include^ representatives from
.local areas with  good contacts and high credibility.
                                      - v       .-


      6.  Metropolitan  Planning Organizations!  Don't overlook
 these organizations for  support  despite  their often placid
 and  plodding  appearance.   They  are directly responsible to
 local governments.    Most  have had extensive experience with
 EPA,  state government, and the communities  they serve.  Since
 their programs and projects are  usually  extended over time,
 their working relationship and evaluation of sources and
 problems can  be extremely  valuable, sound and somewhat
     1.  Public Interest/Environmental Groupings:  Many
have worked either for or against EPA on past programs.
Several have networks already established in communities.
Other program and OPA personnel in the regional offices
probably have a good idea about their credibility, stability;
and knowlege. But state counterparts probably know them
even better.

     Examples are:  *League of Women Voters
                    Conservation Commissions
     2.  Special Interest and Economic Interests;  An addi-
tional source of information, particularly on issues where
local or state economies may be affected by an EPA program
	or where pocketbook issues are involved.   Some of them
may seem to play "hardball" on the outside with highly
critical assessments of EPA or environmental programs.  But
on a one to one basis, they can be helpful and accomodating.

     Examples are:   *Chambers of Commerce (State and local)
                     *American Automobile Association
                     *Groups representing specific industries
                      or interests.

     You don't have to reinvent the wheel.  Someone probably
     has the information you need to work effectively in

     People like being asked for help or non-binding
     advice,on an issue.


     There  are  some  strongly  held myths  about  community  attitudes
 or  the  way local.areas  will  react  to  a  given  situation  based on
 faulty  stereotypes  or assumptions  about who outsiders will  have
 to  deal with on  various public  issues.  These misconceptions
 are common. I  have  fallen  into  some of  these  traps.  They
      1.   Ethnic/Economic  Differences;   Some officials cling
 to  the notion  that  ethnic or  economic  characteristics of
 a community or the  political  structure will give clear in-
 sights into how a community or  neighborhood will react to a
 given environmental problem.    A health threat or neighbor-
 hood  impact elicits similar responses  whenever it is per-
 ceived as  threatening.
     2.  TheMythof The Establishment;  The belief  that
established power centers will  influence or moderate the
feelings of an affected community or area  is highly
questionable.  In factr the reverse seems  more often true.
Emotions generated about health risks at the neighborhood
level will probably cause the so-called power centers to
ultimately react with support.

     3.  The Myth of Regional Differences;   Every region
of the country likes to think it is different but a per-
ceived health threat generates the same emotions and concerns
in Pennsylvania as it does in Oregon.

     4.  General Versus Specific Community Issuest  Caution
is advised about basing local strategies on general polling
or survey research data concerning a particular community
or state.   What people say about things in general may not
be the same as what they ultimately think  when an issue
hits their community.  Examples include: (1)  sacrificing economic
benefits for environmental protection; (2) supporting strong
state or federal programs for handling municipal and hazardous
wastes; (3) giving state and local governments the primary
responsibility for environmental programs  over the federal


      I  can't  stress  strongly  enough my  suggestion  that  the
 best way to get  a  handle  on communities you must deal with
 is  initially  through the  variety  of federal,  state and
 metropolitan  sources I  have already noted.    As an EPA  repre-
 sentative, I  would no more bypass the state than a state
 official would bypass local officials when working in a
 particular city, town or  county.

      There come  times,  however, when federal  officials  must
 deal  with communities directly either in terms of  communications
 or  to expedite a public involvement program.

      There are simply countless sources you can contact or
 must  deal with.    But without touching  base with the sources
 I have  discussed previously,  you  could  be playing  a game of
 Russian Roulette.  The  following  four groupings are common.

      1.   Affected  Citizens And Neighborhoods;  citizens who
 have  been affected by a .presumed  health effect or  whose
 neighborhood  will  be 'affected' by  some action  are the most
 important contacts.   And whether state officials  will  be
 there for support  can depend  on the nature of the  problem
 and how they  want  to  handle it. Citizens affected  by a
 serious  environmental or health problem (or who think they are)
 need  timely and accurate  information.   They are often a major
 source  of information on the  problem itself.  Their attitudes
 often dictate how  the issue and EPA's action  are perceived by
 the media, officials, and the community as a whole.

      2.   Local Officials;  The importance of  touching base
 with  local officials  (elected and  agency officials) is
 paramount.  It helps  to have  a clear reading of who the
 key officials are,  what their problems  and responsibilities
will be on the matter,  and what their interests and
constituencies are.   You will never get  all this down per-
 fectly but stepping into a situation with no  information
will lead to almost certain mistakes.


      3.   State  Legislators;  Many affected residents and
 interest  groups will  contact or work with their state
 legislators  before  they go to local elected officials.
 There are a  number  of reasons for this  including the fact
 that  legislators may  have support from  different or differently
 oriented  constituencies within the community, the relevance of
 state action to the issue, or the perceived interest of the
 legislator in environmental issues.

      One  thing  is clear.   If you get the same reading on
 what  communities are  thinking from both local officials and
 the state legislators, you can usually  consider it reliable.
 Both  have a vested  interest in being on top of what the
 voters are thinking.

      4.   Local  Media:   The newspaper  reporters and radio
 stations  in the  area  often know detailed information about
 communities and  individuals.   I found  I was able to share
 quite a bit with them off the record although caution is
 still in order.
     5.   Any Affected Economic Interests;  While legal
constraints and regulatory strategies dictate caution when
speaking to any source facing a possible EPA legal action,
it is imperative that you have some idea of where specific
economic interests are coming from and the message and
strategies they are employing.

     I am not going to dwell heavily on these except that
effective coordination and communications within the
regional office is a good first principle.

        We  all  know that  we  have  to deal  with  all  people  who
 have a direct  interest  in a problem or a concern  about  it.
 I  will be  frank  about  it.    There were  some  people  in Rhode
 Island I didn't  like to  deal with but  I  knew  I  had  to simply
 to keep my agency's credibility  and integrity in  tact.   And
 there were times when even  the most "off the  wall" -person
 would come up  with something that was positive  and on the

       But, I think if you are going to base decisions or actions
 on what people say and think, you should keep a few  things  in
 mind. These include
      1.  Sustained Credibility;   You  should  be  able  to  ascertain
 from  your  state  and  EPA  sources whether  an  individual you  must
 deal  with  is credible.    I wouldn't necessarily base this  solely
 on how often they tend to support EPA on various issues.
     2.  Climberst   I'm wary of people who  tend  to  use  an
issue to further  themselves personally.    They may  be right
in what they are  trying to do but they can also try  and  co-opt
a federal or state agency.
     3.  People With Grudges;  I was also wary of putting
much confidence in people who had nothing good to say  about
a state agency, EPA, or any other institution.  Their  lack
of objectivity is suspect.
     4.  Single Issue Groups;   These can be the bane of
any official's existence.   They can relate every problem
or issue to their special interest no matter how remote
it is from an official's task.
     5.  Community Spokespersons;  Some people claim  to
represent or speak for the community.  They may or may not,
but don't assume they do simply because they say they do.


          EPA program responsibilities have had strong
          impacts on communities in the past and will
          continue to have them in the future.   The success
          of these programs and the agency's credibility are
          largely dependent on how communities  perceive and
          respond to our initiatives, policies  and thinking.
     2.    Basic community involvement skills and insights
          improve program manageability and agency

     3.    EPA has certain strengths and assets for operating
          effectively in community situations.  The major
          one is a simple perception that EPA representatives
          are environmental  protectors.
     4.    Other involved parties,  particularly state counter-
          parts,  also have certain strengths and assets.
          These should be kept  in  mind when seeking informa-
          tion and support for  working in communities.

     5.    Information and support  for community involvement
          can  be  tapped from

              -regional colleagues

              -state  counterparts

              -other  government and  private sources

     5.    When working at the local  level

              -identify and work with front-line constituencies

              -avoid  prejudging community attitudes

              -combine healthy  skepticism with empathy


      6.   Adoption Papers;   There  will  come  a  time  -•—it
 comes to every official  dealing with communities 	  when
 some  group  or  individual wants to adopt  you as  their
 spokesperson.   You accept  this offer with great peril.
      Almost  all  of  these  are good and decent people.
 Without  them,  a  lot of  good that does get done  in  communi-
 ties  would never see the  light of day.  The problem  is  that
 their interests  and what  you must do to protect EPA's
 credibility  may,  at times, differ.   Most of them  know
 you can't address or be a representative for all their
 objectives.	But  some will try anyway.
      (1)   Avoid other community issues or controversies.
They  spell trouble.

      (2)   Avoid the temptation to promise that something
specific can always be done.  This is very tempting and
often overwhelming.
     (3)   Seek to establish communications and involvement
with people rather than alliances.

     (4)   Willingly talk with all kinds of people.  This
is not always easy or immediately rewarding. But it usually
pays dividends in the long-run.


              Prepared By
       Office of External Affairs
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             November 1983



      Everything EPA does Is  a subject  of  Interest  to  elected

  officials,  environmentalists,  the  press,  affected  communities,

  business  and  the public In  general.

      In  the  act of  communicating  what  It  Is  doing,  EPA  has  the

  opportunity to re-affirm and sustain  trust  In  the  agency.  The

  Communications Plan  will  be the  cornerstone  to develop an  agreed

.  upon  strategy  for  the  Issue at hand while providing  a  vehicle

  to  spell  out  EPA's  encompassing  objectives,  responsibilities

  and  positions  and  enhance the  flow of  Information  about these

  Important environmental  decisions to  the  public at large.


     Communications Planning  should be  an  Integral  part of  any

  EPA action. A  planning  form  (see attachment) should  be added

  to proposed agency activities that Impacts one or more of  the

  agency's constituencies.  T .ere  Is always a need- whether  for

  release of  a report  from R&i) or  publication of a list of

  hazardous waste  dumps or a  new source  performance standard,

 The anticipated  Impact of the action will dictate the amount

 of  planning needed.

'     The Communications Planning Process simply consists of asking

 andanswerlng a few questions:

 (1)  Who's going to be affected by this action?

 (2)  Who has to be notified?

 (3)  What are we going to say?

 (4)  How are we going to notify them?

 (5)  When are we going to do this?

 (6)  Who's responsible for telling whom?

     Sorting out these questions Is the essence of communica-

 tions p lann Ing.


     There are a number of constituencies that the agency

 regularly Interacts with  on  most of Its major actions:

          (a)   affectedInduetry - If  we are Issuing standards

 for reductions  of  emissions  from heavy duty trucks as  required

 by the Clean  Air Act,  then he need to decide which .companies

 will  be directly Impacted.  Manufacturers,  both domestic and

 foreign,  of  heavy  duty trucks would be listed here. Also

 listed,  however, might be mfljor trade groups, In  this  case,

 the Motor  Vehicles  Manufacturing Association or the Auto

 Importers  of  America.

          (b>   t nterest groups - because^of  the  needs and

 concerns  of their members and/or .because of  their  InvpIve-

 ment  during the  development  stages of  a proposed  action,

 interest  groups  should be contacted,  informed and  even  on

occasion  briefed.

          (c)  GovernmentaI  -Specific House and Senate Commit-

 tees and subcommittees that handle environmental  Issues and

 appropriations wI I I  want to be notified.  So will  Congressmen,

 especially those from districts where Impacted Industries are

 located. Senators  and represantatIves might also  be Identified

 by  State or have previously expressed Interest (the "coal caucus"

 for example or the  "Great Lakes caucus").

     At  the State level,  governors In affected  states should be

 told  what Is going  to happen,  as  shou Id ..mayors In . commun I ties

 Involved.   State environmental  protection  agencies  are  also

 IncIuded here.                                .

     Certain  key  executive branch  offices such  as the WhIte

 House may  need  to be  Informed,  as  we I I as  representatives

 from  other  Federal agencies that  may be Impacted by  the

 decision or  which were Involved  in  the development  of the

 act Ion.

          (d)   News medla  - Announcement of  a very technical

 regulation  affecting  measurement  of  certain water discharges

may need to  only be published  f.n  the  Federal register and

communicated  to  the technical press.  Other  actions may need a

full-scale news  conference  and follow-up.  There Is no simple

formula, but  you might say that size  of impact IxIs Ize of

groups affected  will  give you an  Idea as to the volume at

which the communication needs to be  delivered to the news media.


          (®J  af feeted communItIes - In some Instances spe-

 cial attention must be given to geographic areas that will

 be directly Impacted by the agency's action.  Love Canal,

 Brownsville, Tacoma, Times Beach  - ail  would be examples of

 locations directly Impacted by EPA actions where special

 community relations activities must be  Initiated and  should

 be coordinated through the regional offices. In both  head-

 quarters and the regions there exist community  relations

 staff  to Identify  and  develop site-specific activities.


     The simple answer here Is  that If  someone  Is  affected they

 should  be notified.  In some  cases, depending on the  Issue

 Involved,  you  may  need to  go  well  beyond  those  directly

 affected.   You may need to go to  others who for  one reason or

 another  should be  notified even though  they are  not directly


     If  you're dealing  with a major agency decision, all

 members  of  Congress may have  to be  notified.  If we're dealing

 with a very  local  issue, perhaps that a local Congressman's

 office may  have  to be  notified.  This would  be considered  a
 to say  It.   If  we  are  announcing  a  new  clean  up strategy, we
 wilt talk to  union  leaders  fn  terms of  their  Interests - jobs

 and wages,  and  to  fishermen  In  terms of their  Interests - the

 fishery, or to  businesses  In terms of their Interests-costs.

 Because they  know  their programs  best,  EPA program officials

 are generally responsible for  deciding  the what.They must not

 only decide what Information Is to be given but also what

 significance  should be attached.to the Information.  External

 affairs staffers are generally  responsible for how the message

 Is delivered: the style, the tone,.the  format,the medium.


      The way we notify people has a lot to do with who those

 people are and how many of them must be notified.   We may

 need  only to make a ca I I to a congressional  staffer's office

 or to the White House; or, we may need to  schedule a public

 meeting In a community that Is  directly Impacted.   We may need
                             »            '
 to give an fn depth Interview to a major news  reporter,  or we

 may also just hand  a news  release to a wire  service reporter.

      The needs of our constituent groups for  Information  must

 be attached  In as well.   Explaining a  new  policy to a press

 conference might call  for  someone who  can  handle sensitive

 political  issues,  while explaining the  same  policy strategy

 for a  group  of scientists  would call  for a person  with a  clear

 understanding  of the specific science.


 (5)   WHEN  ARE   WE  GOING  TO  00  THIS?

     Because  of  established  policy  and  long-standing tradition,

 some people  are normally notified, as  a  courtesy  in advance of

 the  general  release:   Congressmen,  Governors before news media,,

 affected parties before  non-affected parties.  Any communications

 plan  must  clearly  delineate when actions are going to be taken.

 For  example, what  we  should do  and who we should consult with

 prior to the decision  Is part of the communications planning

 process.   Then  who should be pre-  not IfIed, that  Is notified

 before the Information is released must  also be decided upon.


    The question of coordination and responsibility is vital

 when  It comes to communications planning.  From the very

 start of the planning process, this should be clearly defined.

    What are the responsibilities of the Office of External

 Affairs In notification  and pre-notIfIcatIon?  The Regions?

 What  are the responsibilities of the program officials?  How

 Is all that coordinated.   There Is no pat answer.  Depending

on the program, depending on the Issue, you will  designate

responsibilities to fit  the history of  the issue and the

capability of the program Involved.  For example, banning a

pest IcIde may call  for pre-notIfI cat Ion of certain regional

and  local   Interest groups that only the EPA region or program


 office might know.  Their Input Into the plan Is crucial.

 They may be also aware of certain technical or local  media

 that have been Involved and which should be notified  when the

 decision comes.


     It Is Important that there be very clear procedures for

 doing a communications plan, because there are a number of key

 actors involved In the process and their efforts must contribute

 In  a coordinated  way.

     First of all,  responsibility  must be fixed.   In most normal

 cases, the Office  of  External  Affairs In Washington  Is  responsible

 for putting together  the Communications Plan,   In  the Regions,

 the Regional Public Affairs  Office would be lead.   In many

 cas.es,  however, the program  Involved  will  provide  the guidance

 and suggestions that  will  form the basis for the plan.   For

 major  Issues,  the  Office of'the Admf n Istrator. will want  to

 have a direct  say  as  well  In how  the  communications plan  Is


     Coordinating between  the program, the  Office of External

 Affairs  and  the Office  of  the  Administrator  will be the  job of

 the  person  In  External  Affairs  charged  with  managing  the  plan

 and  the  person  in  the  program  who  has the  corresponding  responsi-

 bility.   Those  officials must  be designated  by the office  and

 program  directors.                                               i,


     One person, however, must have overall authority as well

 as responsIb1tIty regarding the communications plan.  That

 person normally fs the Office of External Affairs contact.

 Implementation Is a d I vIded responsibility with major reliance

 on program  and Regional people.

     Second, milestones must be e s_t a b I I s h e d .  There needs to

 be clear understanding as to what triggers what In the process.

 If there fs a court-Imposed date for publication In the Federal

 Register of a certain regulation, then everybody should "back

 time"  their actions  regarding communications  from that date.

 Questions  will then  arise such as:

     -"When  must a  draft press release go to the program for review"

     -"When  must a  draft letter to a key congressman be written?

       (and  who must  approve It?)

     -"And  when must  the Administrator approve both  of  the  above?"

     These milestones  should'be established  In an  Initial planning

'meeting  that Is held  between  the  Office of  External  Affairs

 and  the  program Involved.

     Third,  everybody  Involved  Must  get  a  look at  the plan.

 It  Is  the responsibility  of the Office  of External  Affairs

 contact  to  coordinate this  clearance  promptly.


    Fourth,  the  effort  should  be evaluated.   It  Is  Important

that there  be  a  debriefIng, especially  In major  act tons, to

determine what worked and what didn't and how the effort can

be  Improved  fn the  future.  Both program personnel and OEA

representatives  should  be Involved  In this effort on a

scheduled basis.

    Fifth, a checklist to assist In the mechanics of Communi-

cations Planning  Is attached for your use.  You may make copies

as required.

Provide information on the following:

  1.  Nature of the action being taken and its potential impact
      on 1) industry 2) general public;

  2.  Proposed announcement date.

  3.  Other EPA offices involved.


  4.  Does  this action respond to legislative requirement,  court
      action,  new technical data, other?  Explain.

  5.  Identify constituent groups directly or Indirectly affected.

  6.  Identify groups that should have special briefings:

         	  White House             ^'^ '-State agencies
         	  Congress/staff              Other federal  agencies
         	  Governors              	 Others - explain
                           •         '

  7.  Describe background  information available on  this action.

  8.   Identify Agency  experts  on this subject.


           —Frank Corrado



 1.   High  public  expectations

 2.   Public more  sophisticated—Sputnik era parents who are

 technically  aware.  They think they are as technically com-

 petent as you.

 3. People are more sophisticated  about using the political

 process—not afraid to go over your head.

 4.   Difficult to talk with people about risk, without jargon,

 5. Property values—usually low to moderate income housing

 near problem area.

 6. Demand for speedy resolution to problems.

 7. "Lightning rod effect"—people will use your presence to

 introduce other agendas (sewer and water hookups, for


Problems of "Avoidance":

0  "Pay me now, pay me later"

0  Technical people enjoy doing technical things, not

   people stuff

 Why Meet With LocalOfficials?

 0   Establishes you as  a source of information

 0   Puts  you  on the offensive

 0   Establishes your credibility

 0   Local officials don't  like  surprises  or  being  backed

    into  corners         ,

 Successful Presentations;

 0   Clear information                                            •{

 0   Convincing

 0   Insightful

 0   Professionally  confident

 0   Personable

   Go out and  shake hands before  the meeting.

 Preparing Your  Presentationst

 0  Identify main, points

 0  Talk  in English

 0  Use examples people can relate to

Questions and Answers

0  You can make up for a bad presentation with good Q&A        '•
0  Don't be surprised by questions (Devil's advocate before     '


0  If you don't know answer, admit it
0  If you're attacked, focus attack on the issue at hand
0  Be specific, cite examples
0  To cut off speakers:  (1) Turn eyes away  (2) Recess
   if out of hand
0  Don't say:  "Are there any questions?", say "What kind
   of questions do you have?"


                     (c) 1976


 During  this course we  call attention  to three  levels of
 communication.  While learning the skills of Active Listen-
 ing- and Congruent Sending, we will  stress two  of these le-
 (1)  The CONTENT level - the facts, the information,
     the subject matter which is being communicated.
 (2)  The FEELING level - how the person feels about
     the information that is being communicated.
People feel more completely understood if the listener indi-
cates an understanding of what  the  person  thinks, and what
the person feels.

But there is a third level of communication - the VALUES le-
vel  - which  we  need to understand if we  want  to know why
people feel the way they do about the  things  they are com-

Values are the internal standards by  which we judge events
or  behavior   to  be  good/bad,   right/wrong,  moral/immoral,
fair/unfair,  just/unjust.  We derive our values from train-
ing, experience and introspection, and we often feel guilty
or unsuccessful when we do not live up to our values.

Values are the internal "standards by  which we judge events
or behavior rather than explicitly  stated.   While they are
a strong force in  shaping our lives,  when.they  are stated
explicitly they sound  vaguely  like  "motherhood" and "apple
pie" and are  difficult to defend except as an act of faith.
The writers of the Declaration of Independence fell back on
the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident" to jus-
tify values as fundamental as Life,  Liberty, and Pursuit of


 Examples of values are:  Order, Comfort, Control, Equality,
 Security, and  Freedom.

 Some values are much  more  fundamental  and  other values de-
 rive from  them.   For  example,  both Freedom  of Speech and
 Due Process of Law are values because  they  are seen as ne-
 cessary  to  provide Individual  Freedom,  which  is  the  more
 fundamental concept.

 Other  values  proceed  from very basic  premises about Man's
 Relationship  to  Man,  Man's  Relationship to  Nature, Man's
 Relationship to Time.  In the field of land use and  natural
 resources, for example,  there is  an  underlying conception
 of man's relationship to nature in which, at one end of the
 scale,  man  is seen as  subordinate to  nature; and  at the
 other  end of  the  scale,  man is here to  utilize or  exploit
 nature.  Many people want to avoid either extreme and so de-
 clare  that their position is that  of  Man Living in  Harmony
 with Nature; yet rarely do any two individuals  find  the bal-
 ance point at exactly the same place.


 It is  the nature  of  values that they  are  highly personal.
 Each of us possesses  an  "individual  reality",  a perception
 of reality based  on  our own  unique set of  personal rules
governing our  feelings,  which  - while having  some  degrees
of internal consistency - means that we never  have entirely
 the same perception-of reality as another person.

Values  are a critical element in creating these "individual
realities" because they give meaning to behavior or  events.
Based  on values we see  events or  behavior as  good  or  bad,
 fair or unfair, and this provides us with the  personal mean-
ing of the event  - then based on this meaning  we feel happy,
sad,  angry,  pleased,  annoyed, or  whatever.    Our  feelings
are unique to us  precisely because our training, experience,


and  introspection  have  led us  to  develop a  set  of values
unique to us.

Not'only do we possess a  "personal"  set  of values,  but ty-
pically we are confronted  in  life  with situations where we
must  find a  balance point between conflicting  values, all
of which we  consider to be important.   In relationship to
other people  we  may find ourselves  torn  between  values of
Honesty and  Expediency  or even Compassion.   The  real task
is not just one of  identifying  our values, but  rather that
of  "valuing"  - making  choices  between values  as to their
relative importance  in a particular  situation.


It is this act of "valuing" which is at the heart of making
policy decisions of any kind.  Underlying all  fundamental
policy decisions  are competing values -  all of  which are
considered positive  "goods"  -.which  must  be. resolved  by a
decision as to which value is of greater importance in this
particular situation.  For example,  if a policy were under
consideration to control  distribution of pornographic lit-
erature, there are  competing values  of  Individual  Freedom
and  Freedom  of the  Press  on the one  hand, and  a  concern
for Public Welfare on the other.  No one  is against any of
these values.  The  issue is which value  should prevail in
this instance.

A policy is a balance point  selected between competing po-
sitive values at a given point in time.  Competing policies
are  really  competing judgments as  to the .relative impor-
tance  of  particular values   in  a  particular,  situation.
This is illustrated  below:
     Positive                                 Positive
      Value           '                  '     ... Value

Each policy  is a  balance  point  between two competing posi-
tive values, or "goods".   Each  policy reflects a different
valuing of the relative merits  or  importance of these val-
ues .

At  the Values  Level everyone  is  "for"  something  -  even
though the "positive good" that one person is for is in op-
position to  the "positive good" another individual supports,
It is only at a policy level that people are "aginers", and
they are  "aginers" .because  they  would select  a different
balance point  between the opposing  values.    Since  values
are rarely explicitly stated,  people  frequently find them-
selves in policy arguments.  This can  be  a sign that there
are fundamental values differences and whenever people have
substantial  values  differences  they  will  usually  appear
over-emotional and  illogical  to each  other.    As  a result,
we tend to dismiss their ideas.


This has an  important  impact on how public  comment  is re-
ceived by agencies.   People  often wait until  their  values
are threatened before  they act,, and  the  bulk  of  the com-
ments, they make will be necessarily  general  and emotional.
These comments will  be  a'n important  source  of information
about values people want applied in the situation, but they
may lack  specificity.   Organized  interest groups,  on the
other hand,  have the commitment and  resources  to translate
their values  into specific  concrete  proposals.   As  a re-
sult there is a  tendency  on the  part of  agencies  to view
the data from interest groups as "valuable" while regarding
the data from the general public as "over-emotional and il-


One reason that  much information from  the  public is  viewed


as  over-emotional  and illogical is. that  it  conflicts with
unconscious values implicit  in  the agency's  policy. If you
carefully  examine  the fundamental policies  of your agency
you  will undoubtedly  find  that there are  definite values
which underlie these  policies.   For example,  if you are on
the  staff  of a  natural  resources agency  with a "multiple
use" policy, your agency will have an underlying value that
honors  actions  that  result  in   the greatest  good  for the
greatest number.   This policy  may cause, you  to  be suspi-
cious of special interests and  predispose  you not to think
of  alternatives  which  fully develop  just  a  single  use.
Since people argue  from  different value  systems  they tend
to  appear  over-emotional  and illogical to each other. You
may  tend to  see some  segments  of the public as over-emo-
tional  and. illogical and  you  may .appear  the  same  way to
them.                                            -


Here is an analysis of the three different levels of commu-
nication in a specific example:
                     JUST -LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.  WITHOUT US .
                     YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A JOB AND YOU
                     WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUSH PEOPLE A-
                     ROUND LIKE THIS."
CONTENT LEVEL:       Opposition to closing road to off-road
                     vehicles.  Perceives road closure as
                     violating his rights as a citizen.
FEELING LEVEL:    -  - Anger, Outrage, Upset.
VALUES LEVEL:        Individual Freedom, Equal Rights of
                     All Citizens, Consent of the Governed.
Because  values  are  implied,  not  explicitly  stated,  this
kind of  analysis  requires that you examine  the  methods, by

which people  "imply"  their  values.   Three frequent methods
for  identifying values are:
 (1)  Use of value-laden language:  Using terms such as
     "locking-up the land",  "criminal abuse", "power-hungry
 (2)  Referring to a venerable source:  People may quote the
     Bible, the Constitution, a famous person, or an Agency
     Manual to justify their beliefs.
 (3)  Predicting a dire consequence:  People will predict
     that an action will "wipe out the small businessman",
     or if another action isn't taken "we won't be able to
     walk the streets of our own city after dark".

Most political scientists agree that a decision is "politi-
cal" if  it  bestows  benefits and costs on  different  inter-
ests - even if the  decision is  made through administrative
channels rather than through "the political process".

These "interests" may be composed of  people  who have a di-
rect economic or 'user benefit, or they may also be composed
of people whose sense of the way things ought to be managed
is affected by  the  decision you make.   Policies  you  make
bestow benefits or costs -based  on  people's values, as well
as their bank accounts.   The act of  selecting  between op-
posing values to  determine  a policy that  affects  a  number
of  people  is essentially   a  political  act.   This  is why
there is a demand by the public to participate in  these de-

To communicate with people  effectively,  it is necessary to
understand  the  positive  values  they  support,  rather  than
merely identify the policies they oppose.  These communica-
tions must accept emotional data from the general  public as
a valuable  source of information  about  values or it  will"
build a  bias  into the oublic  involvement  for  the kind of

specific, documented contribution which  can  only  come from
the organized interests.

         VALUES AND
Public Consciousness
  determinants -
Shoulds" or "Oughts
                (Generalized perceptions  o
                 how the world should  be)
                        VALUE PROPS

Family security
Inner harmony
National security
 Hard work
Free speech

                             (C) 1976


There are  several important .principles about  how feelings
function that underlie the listening and sending skills you
are being taught  to use in this course.


Communication takes place at two levels:  The Content Level
-  the  subject matter we  are discussing;  the  Relationship
Level - what  we  communicate to the other  person  about how
much we value  them or  accept  them.   Think  about  the last
time someone ordered you to do something:  You may not have
found much that.you could disagree with at a Content Level,
but you  could still feel  resentful or  "put down"  at the
manner in which the order was  given.   The Relationship Le-
vel operates  primarily  on  feelings:   ".I  feel  valued, ac-
cepted,  comfortable."   If  you also think  about  times when
you've disagreed  strongly with someone  -  such  as a politi-
cal argument - and enjoyed it, I think  you  will find it is
with someone  you respect and  who  you  know  respected you.
You could argue because you were certain the argument would
not fundamentally a'lter the mutual respect.

In other words,  if there  is mutual respect  and  trust at a
Relationship Level it is possible to agree or disagree with
equal comfort.

But if the  mutual respect  and  trust  does  not  exist, then
every Content Level issue .also becomes  a  test  of the  rela-


One way we  communicate  acceptance  at  a  Relationship  Level
is  by  communicating  acceptance  of  feelings   as  well  as
facts.   If we only accept facts from people  we are accept-

 ing  them  conditionally:   "I  will accept only certain parts
 of you; I will  accept  you  as long as you aren't expressing
 feelings."  This  is  a  bit  like  telling people that you ac-
 cept  all  of them except their arras  and  legs  - most bodies
 come  fully equipped.   People come  fully  equipped with feel-
 ings  and  that  is a great  part of  what makes  them uniquely

 The  result is  that  when people express  feelings  and they
 are  not accepted,  they tend  to  push  harder as  if to prove
 that  their feelings are  justified,   or  to prove  to them-
 selves that  it  is really all  right to  feel the way they do.

 On the other hand when feelings  are  accepted, the feelings
 now  come  out less pressured, less accusatory  and  less de-
 fensive.   Once  expressed,  other  feelings can flow in behind.


 We have  been talking  about  accepting feelings,  but let's
 take  a  minute  to distinguish  acceptance  from  agreement.
 You  express  acceptance when  you say:   "I understand that
 you  feel  such-and-such a  way. about  this  topic."   You ex-
 press, agreement when you say:  "You  couldn't be more right,
 I feel that  way too."  In the first place you accept that
 theother person  feels the  way  he  does,  but  in agreement
 you ally  yourself  with the  other  person.  What  we really
 want  to communicate  is,  in  effect:   "It's OK with  me for
 you to be  just  exactly who you are and feel the way you do."


 One way we run into  problems with  feelings  is  to assume
 that  if someone has  a different feeling  than  ours,  one of
 us_must be right and one of  us must  be wrong.   But another
way of looking  at  it  is  to  consider  that  when  two people
 react differently to the same situation  they are reacting


within the rules of their own upbringing, training, experi-
ences  and values.    Because upbringing,, training,  experi-
ences and values are absolutely unique to each person, then
the rules which govern  feelings  are also absolutely unique
to each person.  While we all have enough common background
that we can usually agree on what would be a "normal" reac-
tion,  the fact remains  that  each one of us has  areas  in
which our reactions are completely unique.

This changes things rather  fundamentally:  "If there is all
one universe then I can say that  if  there is a Natural Law
that says all things fall down, then I can. exclude the pos-
sibility  that some things fall up.  But since the rules are
different for  each individual  I cannot  assume that  just
because I was horrified by an event doesn't mean that some-
one else may not be delighted - and be perfectly consistent
within his/her individual reality."   .

Yet we have a tendency to try  to  obliterate  the other per-
son's  feelings  and  try to  prove that  ours  are  correct.
This proves nothing:   It is a fact  that he  feels  the way
he feels.  The only appropriate behavior  is  to accept that
he feels  the way  he  feels and begin to  report the way you
feel.  We may  not  have the same  reactions to the  same ex-
periences, but we can begin to share enough  of what is go- .
ing on in us  to begin to understand each other.   Inciden-
tally, in the process of this kind of sharing, people learn,
and the rules of their reality may alter  enough so that next
time they have a reaction that has more in common with your


Other  communications   problems  arise  from  the  manner  in
which we try to express our feelings. .Our culture has erec-
ted considerable barriers to the  expression of feeling; the
individual who expresses strong feelings  is considered to

 be  "over-emotional",  "overly sensitive", "irrational", "out
 of  control".   But our feelings remain,  so  we  learn to ex-
 press  feelings  indirectly  through  our content  messages.
 Typically, .unless the individual trusts  us and considers us
 a friend,  feelings are known only by implication.

 One  characteristic  of this  "communication  by implication"
 is  that  people send  Presenting Problems.   Presenting Pro-
 blems are  like trial balloons - they are small, relatively
 innocuous  problems which, if they are not rejected, lead to
 sharing of more basic and deeply experienced problems.

 For example:
 One  of  the fellows  in  the  office  might be  making little
 complaints about a co-worker.  For several days you tend to
 ignore this Presenting  Problems,  but finally  you  sit down
 and listen and this story spills:
     "The co-worker is always doing pesky things - it's
     not just him, it seems like lots of people have been
     doing it lately - maybe it's just that I'm irritable
     because of the way things are going at home - things
     have gotten so bad that this week I've been sleeping
     on the couch in the living room - I'm really desper-
     ate.  I don't know what to do.  Things are all fall-
     ing apart."
This pattern of descending levels of communication, proceed-
ing from the Presenting Problem to deeper feelings, is typi-
cal of communication  when there is  an  effective listener,
but many of our conventional communication skills would not
encourage  this  openness.   In  fact,  unless  the  sender had
such strong feelings  that  he  could  override our responses,
we might never know about his problems.


The basis  of much  ineffective listening is  two-fold:   1.)
Failure to distinguish those times (like the example above)


when the sender is not expecting  you  to  do anything except
understand; and 2.)  Failure  to 'listen long enough  or with
sufficient understanding of the,sender's feelings to really
clearly understand the definition of the problem. .


Sender:   "I'm really desperate, I don't know what to do."
Listener: "Don't feel that way, we can.work things out."

Now, the Sender is not only desperate,  but also angry with
the Listener  for  evaluating  his feeling after  he  has made
himself  vulnerable.    From the  Listener's point  of view,
there  wasn't  anything else he  could do;  yet  many, typical
ways of responding  run  some  risk  of  communicating non-
acceptance .                   •
Here are twelve typical ways that most, people  respond in a
listening situation:                                .

1.   Ordering, Demanding:  "You must .••.-.," "You have  to  ..."
2.   Warning,  Threatening:   "You had better...," "If you
     don't, then..."
3.   Admonishing,  Moralizing:  "You should...," "It is your
     responsibility..."            ..  -
4.   Persuading, Arguing, Lecturing:  VDo  you realize...?".
     "The facts are — "                .
5.   Advising, Giving Answers:  "Why don't you...?" "Let me
     suggest..."    .            '•',',.
6.   Criticizing,  Disagreeing:. "You are/not thinking about
     this properly..."          ,
7.   Praising, Agreeing:   "But you've done such a good job
     ...," "I approve of..."
8.   Reassuring, Sympathizing:  "Don*t worry...," "You'll
     feel better..."                .
9.   Interpreting, Diagnosing:  "W^at you  need  is...,"
     "Your problem is..."          . .
                             54  • •'•.':  .  ; '

 10.  Probing, Questioning:   "Why...?" "Who...?" "What...?"
 11.  Diverting, Avoiding:  "We can discuss it later..."
 12.  Kidding, Using Sarcasm:  "When did you read a news-
     paper last...?"
These messages run some risk of communicating to the send-
er that it is not acceptable for  him  to have his feeling.
The risk is that the sender may hear the following emotion-
al messages from you, the listener:                .  .

1}   Don't have"that feeling.
2)   You'd better not have that feeling.
3)   You're bad.if you have that feeling.
4}   Here are some facts so you won't have that feeling.
5)   Here's a solution so you won't have that feeling.
6)   You're wrong if you have that feeling.
7)   Your feeling is subject to my approval.
8}   You needn't have that feeling.
9)   Here's the reason you have that feeling.
10)  Are you really justified in having that feeling?
11)  Your feeling isn't worthy of discussion.
12)  You're silly if you persist in having that feeling.

When the sender perceives that he  is  getting one of these
messages there  is  a  risk  that  he will  become  defensive
and either justify  the  feeling  further, or  close  off en-
tirely,  never allowing the listener to hear-anything deep-
er than the Presenting Problem.

Listener: "Sounds like you're feeling pretty frustrated
          with that project." .'•'       .

The benefit of Active Listening is^tbat ,you have communica-
ted acceptance of  the  Sender's feeling.   In  addition, it
allows you to  "check out" your understanding and  also he
can correct you if you misunderstood him.  Frequently, you
will find  that when you  employ Active  Listening,  people
feel more comfortable  in  bringing problems to  you  and in
sharing deeper problems.  You may also  find  that when you
use Active Listening, people are able to talk through their
feelings and solve their own problem.


When your Associate asks you:  "Do I have to fill out this
form?", is he asking you for information or telling you his

He might be saying:

          "Is this the right form?"
          "Is this the proper procedure to follow?"
          "I resent spending my time filling out this form."
          "I hate forms."
          "I sure wish you would say I don't have to do it."

Because it is difficult to know for sure whether a question
is a request for information or a.  statement  of feeling it
is frequently  important -to  give  an Active  Listening  re-
sponse when the  question  is first  asked to see  which it
really is.

This can be done either of two ways:

1.   Response to  Most  Probable Message:   If,  because of
the context (past history, etc.),  you  are relatively sure
of the emotional message then you might feed back your un-
derstanding of  his  message.    Remember  though  to  listen
carefully to any corrections he may make to your response.


Associate:   Do I have to fill out this form?
Supervisor:  You're hoping it really isn't that important."

Associate might reply:
     "No, that's not it.  I just want to know if this is
     the right one."
Associate might reply:
     "Yeah, it's such a waste of time filling out forms."

2.   Indicate Your Uncertainty:  Another approach which re-
duces the risks  of making the  man resentful  if  you have
misinterpreted him is to simply tell him  you are  not sure
whether he  is  aksing  for information or  expressing feel-
ings and let him choose between them.

Example:                                  .

Associate:   "Do I really have to fill out this form?
Supervisor:   "I'm not quite sure whether you're asking me
             whether that's the right form or telling me
             that you hope you don't have to fill it out."

Associate might reply:
     "I just wanted to make sure it was the right one."
Associate might reply:
     "Yeah,  it's sure a waste of time filling out forms."
Associate might reply:
     "This particular form really seems stupid."

Two Pointers for Recongnizing Feelings in Questions
1)    Watch for intensity of voice tone or words that ap-
     pear to be greater than would be justified by a re-


     quest for information.  The example, used above - "Do
     I have to fill out this form?" - could only be picked
     up by voice tone.  You would easily identify a feel-
     ing if instead it was:  "Do I really have to fill out
     this form?"

2)   Watch for requests for information when you are rela-
     tively sure the Associate already knows the informa-

Turned off
On the Spot
Intruded Upon
Unfaired Against
In a Bind
Cared For

                             (C) 1976


Typical Ways of Sending

The three most typical ways of sending feelings (sending a

solution, evaluating and indirect messages) run some risks

of creating defensiveness or resistance.

1)   Sending a Solution:  Rather than telling the other

     person what you are feeling, you tell them what you

     want done about it.  This could be an order, sugges-

     tion, advice, etc.


     Instead of saying:  "I really get annoyed when you
     borrow my manual and don't return it."

     you say:  "Don't ever borrow my manual again."

     or:  "Why don't you get your own manual."

The risks  are as follows:
     a)   Sending a solution implies a power differential
          - someone is higher, someone is lower - and people
          resist the use of power even when they agree
          with the solution.

     b)   Sending a solution defines the problem poorly.
          Once you give a solution, enforcing the solution
          becomes the problem, whether or not the solution
          solves the.initial problem.

     c)   Sending a solution communicates a lack of trust.
          Implicit in sending the solution is the communi-
          cation that you don't expect the other person
          to be able to figure out the solution.
2)   Evaluating;   Another frequent^method of sending is to

     evaluate, blame or judge the other person.


     Instead of saying:   "I really get annoyed when, you
     borrow my manual and don't return it."

     you say:  "You're rude and thoughtless about borrow-
     ing things."

     or:  "You're certainly inconsiderate."

The risks are as follows:
     a)   People become defensive when you judge or evalu-
          ate them.

     b)   The Judge or Evaluator is in a power position -
          people may resent your "one up" position.

     c)   People resent being interpreted and judged by
          your, standards.
3)   Indirect Messages:  Indirect messages are messages

     which contain no direct expression of the Sender's

     feelings, although frequently the feelings are im-

     plied by voice tone, emphasis, or sarcasm.  They in-

     clude "cuts'", questions, "cloaked" messages, or de-

     nials .                              •

     Instead of saying:  "I really get annoyed when you
     borrow my manual and don't return it."

     you say:  "Got any spare manuals?"

     or:  "If people in this office would be more thought-
     ful, it sure would make it a nicer place to work."
The risks are as follows:

     a)   The message may never get through.  You may be
          so indirect that the other person doesn't under-
          stand you -have a problem.

     b)   What does get through tends-to be unclear and


           undefined  negative  feelings.  One  result of  this
           is" that  it  is  difficult  to  solve the  problems.
           It  is  too  ambiguous.

     c)    Ambiguous  negative  feelings tends  to  be under-
           stood  as a  generalized rejection rather than a
           specific reaction.  "If  I know  you are upset,
           but  I'm  not quite sure why, I will tend to be-
           lieve  'he  doesn't like me', rather than  'he's
           upset  because  I didn't return his  manual.'"
           Sometimes  this may  result in the Listener to-
           tally  isolating the sender  or even launching
           a massive  counter-attack to the imagined rejec-
           tion.  .
The alternative  to  these methods can  be  called Congruent

Sending.  The term  "Congruent" comes from the fact  that in

a Congruent Message the  message and the code coincide, fit,

are congruent:

This congruence consists of three parts:
1.   Sending feelings, instead of evaluations or solutions

2.   Ownership of feelings.

3.   Describing, rather than evaluating behavior.

1.   Sending Feelings Instead of Evaluations or Solutions:

In Active Listening  we  attempted to state  for  the sender
the feelings we understood to be implied in his statement.

When we are sending, rather than rely  on  the other person

to understand all the implications, we indicate our feel-

 ings  directly.   We  tell  the  other  person what is really go-
 ing  on  in us.   A congruent  message  typically  contains a
 feeling  word.   When we  are  hurt,  annoyed,  pleased,  frus-
 trated,  happy, we say  that  we are hurt, annoyed, pleased,
 frustrated,  happy.   Recently there has been  much  talk a-
 bout  communicating  honestly  - "Tell  it  like it  is."   Fre-
 quently  honesty  is mistaken for  telling  everyone   your
 evaluations  about them,  rather than your feelings.  The ba-
 sis  of  the  congruent  message is  that  feelings   precede
 evaluations.   When  we feel hurt by  something we  then (as
 a  second response)  evaluate  the  person who hurt us.  So
 the equations are different:
Typical Equation:
Honesty = Sending Evaluations.
Congruent Equation:
Honesty = Sending Feelings
                                    Underlying Attitude
"I'm going to tell you
when you are good or bad
based on your behavior
towards me."
"I'll tell you very di-
rectly what I am feeling
in response to your be-
havior, but I won't judge
your behavior."
2.   Ownership of Feelings:

A major reason for this underlying attitude is the second
part of congruence -  the  sender must  "own"  his feelings.
By "ownership" we  mean that the sender does  not  blame or
accuse other people for his feelings but takes responsibi-
lity for his own feelings.
First attempts  to  communicate feelings  usually  come out,
"You hurt me when you said that."  This  is a "you" message,
a feeling message made blaming and  accusing  by virture of
the pronoun "you" which indicates that the other person is
responsible for your feeling.

The Congruent Message is usually  an  "I"  Message,  such as,
"I felt hurt when you said that."

3-   Describing Rather than Evaluating Behavior

The Behavioral  Description is  the statement  which indi-
cates  the  behavior  about  which you have a  feeling.  It is
very easy to confuse a. Behavioral Description with an eval-

     "I really get annoyed when you borrow my manual and
     don't return it.
The underlined portion described a behavior.

     "I really get annoyed when you're so inconsiderate."
The underlined portion is an evaluation with all the risks
involved in sending evaluations.
The Behavioral Description specifies the other person's be-
havior without judging it.  It also indicates the specific
behavior about which you"have feelings so that the listen-
er understands which  behaviors  to modify if  he  wants you
to feel differently.

A Formula for Congruent Sending:

A simple formula for Congruent Sending is:

     "I'm + feeling word + behavioral description




              —Frank Corrado

         "Communicating  With  the  Public on  Health Effects"
     The purpose of  this  training  session  is  to help you as you
 attempt to deal with questions  from  the public regarding what
 effects toxic pollutants  may have  on their health.
     EPA field people are commonly asked questions such as:
         "Will I get cancer if  I drink the water?"
         "Would you  live  in this community?"
         "What effect will one  part  per billion of dioxin have
         on my children's health?".
     The frequency and volume with which these questions continue
 to be asked of EPA strongly indicate  the enormous public concern
 about the effects of chemical contaminants, a concern that in the
 past few years has turned to panic in communities such as Love
 Canal, Times Beach,  Battle Creek,  and Wolburn —- all are names
 synonymous with public anguish  and fear directed at the potential
 impacts of hazardous waste disposal  and its effects on human health,
     Public opinion  research conducted by the Roper Organization
 for EPA shows that 6 out of 10  Americans place pollution—from
chemical waste'leakage into the ground (felt to be "very serious")
and air pollution from factories and auto exhausts among the top
10 problems facing our Nation.
     When you go into a community  to conduct your business you may
find that this public concern about  health effects is so overriding
that it makes your job extremely difficult.
       V  '••-               68 -

      When  we  do  not  communicate  clearly  about  health effects  in the

 communities that we  must  work  in,  we  find  that it's harder  for us

 to  do our  jobs...it's  harder to  talk  with  people...it's harder to

 run public meetings...it1s  harder  to  get permits  issued...it's

 harder  to  deal with  on-scene emergencies.

      This  also means that:

         ...meetings become contentious

         ...administrative  appeals increase

         ...confusion wastes technical resources  and time.

      Frankly, EPA has caused part  of  this  problem;..but a good part

 is  caused  by  things  that  we have little  or no  control over.

      Over,  the past few years, people  have  come to distrust  EPA...

 they  feel  it often moves  too slowly,  and that  it.  stumbles when it

 tries to deal with toxic  chemicals.
                                    .*              *

     Also,  in the past few years,  there.was public concern  that:

         ...the management of the  Agency was not  reporting  the facts

            about risk to the public.

         ...policy considerations  were making  risks seem less than

            they were.

         ...there might even have  been tampering  for crass  politi-

            cal gain.

     Whether this was true or not, lots of people believed  it, and

this has hurt  us...it is as if someone had caught their family doc-

tor in a lie.

     But public fears over environmental risks  have also been


 caused by factors over which  we  in  EPA  have  no  control:...general

 public fears  over cancer...exaggerated  media coverage...scientific

 arguments about  the  effects of exposure to small  amounts  of

 carcinogens...lack of  public  understanding of risk.

      In the midst of all  this, all  of us in  EPA are  today trying to

 carry out our  primary  mission:   that of protecting public health

 by reducing risk,

      No matter what  program you  are in...no  matter what your speci-

 fic job is, you  are  part of an Agency that is responsible for protec-

 ting  the  public  health of the people in this country. If  we take this

 as our  Agency  credo  and build this  concept into our  daily thinking,

 many  of our problems in health affects  communication will vanish.

      When  you're  in  a  community, people do not  look  at you as an

 "on-scene  coordinator"  or a "hearing officer" or  a "monitoring ex-

 pert,  "they see you  as  "The EPA"—all "EPAs"—state, local, federal.

 And whether you're "responsible" for communicating health effects in-

 formation  or not  in your job description, the Administrator feels

 it is  important that for the success of  your own  efforts,  and as a

matter of  Agency policy, that you be able to communicate  credibly

 with  the public on health effects and their  relation to EPA


     What we hope to accomplish  in the  period of  time we  have now is

to help you understand  the importance of credibility in communicat-

 ing health effects information to the public...to help you understand

how the public thinks about risk...and  finally, give you  some practi-


 cal suggestions to keep in mind  when  you  respond  to  questions.

      As we said earlier,  we hope this will  help make your  job easier

 as you  work in communities throughout this  region.

      First...let's talk abut CREDIBILITY...the credibility of

 EPA...and  your own personal credibility as  you deal  with the public.

 Credibility consists  of two things—EXPERTISE and TRUSTWORTHINESS.

 Expertise  simply put,  is  what we know about a subject.  Trustworthi-

 ness  is whether what  we say can  be  trusted.

      When  it comes to health effects  information, EPA is responsible

 for providing  expertise as to what  levels of pollution are safe  in

 order to protect public health.  As  you are  well aware, being expert

 in  setting  safe levels  of  exposure  to contaminants is extremely

 difficult...and EPA,  along with  FDA,  the Centers for  Disease Control,

 and scientific  researchers for industry, universities, and environ-

 mental  groups are  at  work  continually on assessing levels  of risk

 from  various contaminants.

      This assessment process  is  quite  inexact.  Most  assessments are

 based on extrapolations from  studies  of laboratory animals.  What

 the effects to  humans are  of  exposure  to one part per billion of EDB

 in cake mix, for example,  has elicited scientific assessments all

 the way  from predicting that  EDB  is definitely cancer causing, to

 the conclusion  that the risk  is  lower  than  that of eating  charcoal

broiled steak or peanut butter. These estimates of effects on

humans may vary by a factor of 100, 1000, or more.  Scientists

realize that, in fact, there only about 20 chemicals  have  been proven

definitely to be., human carcinogens, like benzene for example.


      These "best-guess"  estimates  that  are made by  looking at how

 potent the hazard  is,  and  how much exposure  people  are getting are

 very inexact,  but  are  the  legal  basis on which EPA  must make its

 judgments.   The  Agency makes  worst case judgments—that means

 it makes  estimates that  insure risks are not underestimated.

      EPA's expertise in  health effects  also  extends to how it man-

 ages the  risks once they are  assessed.  It is up to EPA to look at

 those risks and  manage them in light of economic and social values:

 risk vs.  benefit,  what the law allows EPA to do vs.  what really has

 to be done,  and  then the cost of doing  it all as the cost of

 protection  rises dramatically.

      EPA  must  often act  on the basis of scientific  judgments made

 rapidly in  light of the  best  available  information.   And it is

 not  uncommon for scientists to go  to the media to challenge our


      Although  there is much uncertainty in risk assessment, the

 conservative process enables  us  to have confidence  that the

 true  level of  risk is below  estimated  levels. In other words,

 even  though the  risks  are uncertain doesn't  mean that we

 can't know with  good confidence  what the upper limit is.

     We should also do a better  job of  communicating the superb

 and highly respected evaluation  and review procedures of EPA's

 Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG)  which provides EPA with a central

capability for evaluating information on the health  effects of

 toxic pollutants and ensures  the consistency and technical compli-

ance in the Agency's risk assessment work.   The CAG  not only keeps


 abreast of  current  scientific techniques, but identifies and pro-

 motes development of new techniques to support health risk assess-

 ment. They  may not  have all the answers to the tough questions but

 what they have are  the best available.

     The situation  is very much like that of shopping in different

 stores.  For example, when you shop at K-Mart, the credibility of

 the sales force is  not high, and you don't expect it to be.  You

 go there to buy brand name products—-Black and Decker, K-Mart

 brand, and Kodak among others.  The product has the credibility.

 But when you go to  the local hardware store you often have to

 rely on the credibility of the salesperson, because you need

 help in choosing the right product or approach for solving your

problem.  At EPA, our expertise due to the problems mentioned,

 is sometimes lacking. Our trustworthiness cannot be.

     Consequently, when you go into a community, and people ask you

questions about health effects, we're relying on you to be as

expert as you can, and more importantly, to be trustworthy.

     Your credibility in any situation is based to a great

extent on how people size you up as a person:

     - Do you talk "straight" to them, versus mumbling bureaucratic

       jargon?   For example, Harold Denton, the former head of the

       Nuclear  Regulatory Commission, showed how this can win the
       day when he brought his down-home, straight forward style

       into the limelight in the Three Mile Island crisis.  His

       straight forward honesty had a lot to do with restoring public


      - Do you look people in the  eye?

      - Do you listen to what they're saying  and  acknowledge  that

        you understand?

      -  When you don't  know the answer,  do you admit  it?   Are  you

         willing  to get  the  answer and  get back to  them  quickly?

      - When EPA  has screwed up are you candid in admitting it?

      - Can you put yourself in other people's shoes?  Do  you try to

        understand where they're coming from? What their  interests

        really are?  The welfare of their kids, their  property

        values, their reputation in the community,  their peace  of


      Credibility can be our ace ,in the hole...it's our  bedside

manner...half of medicine,  they say, is  how  the  doctor  treats  the

patient.   If we  treat public concerns  about  health effects seri-

ously and  empathetically, it will  take us a  long way.

      Now,  let's  look at some practical ways  of dealing  with  risk

questions...typical  risk  questions...that are likely  to come up

with  the public.   I  will  show you  a brief video  simulation of  an

EPA employee answering  a  question.  Then we  will discuss  as  a

group what might  be  the most appropriate answer.   Finally, I will

lay out some  general principles.

#1 -  Be Understandable

Question:  "What effect  will  drinking this water  have on our  health?

Video;  "Exposure  to  .7 micrograms per litre of  benzene in drinking

water will result  in an excess lifetime  cancer risk of one case

per million."

   The first  rule of communicating health effects  information  to


 the public is that what we  say must  be understandable.  This
 means  that it is  important  for us to explain health effects to
 people in language they can understand.  In our example, the
 speaker  needs to make  the point that concentration (ppm) is not
 all that counts.   Hazard is a  function of  toxicity and exposure
 as  well.   He  might have explained parts per billion in any
 one of the following, analogies:—one ppb is one inch  in 16,000
 miles; —one  ppb  is one second in 33 years; or one minute in the
 time elapsed  since the year one.  It is also important that people
 understand that the ppb or  ppt numbers are only one factor used in
 determining if and what actions must be taken, and this is done on
 a case-by-case basis.
     We might even avoid talking about concentrations...parts per
million...altogether and simply might say: "the amount of benzene in
 your drinking water is very small, so small that we feel that your
 chance of getting  cancer from  exposure to  it compares to the chance
of  the earth  being wiped out by a supernova," The obvious problem
here is that we need similar examples for a wide range of risk
     We also  need  to make sure people understand that there is a
range of estimates—sometimes  over three or more magnitudes...and
that EPA always uses the most  conservative estimates.  Often we
are dealing with trace  levels  of pollutants for which no standard
exists. Usually at  these levels we don't see a problem, that it's
sort of a "best guess"   judgment now.  If levels were high,  we
would allow for a  substitute source.

 #2  Present  Options

 Question?   "What  are  the  choices  if  there  is some contamination

 found  in our drinking  water?"

 Video;  "I'm sorry/ but there  is  nothing we can do about the water

 supply, but close it down."

    Many times,  unless  we're dealing  with a cut and dry case of

 danger to the public health we need  to  bring the public into the

 formulation of  solutions.  When we do so, we are empowering—giving

 them some control over the risks  to  which they are exposed.

     Although public health protection  is our primary job, any

 particular  action to control a pollutant may have an effect on

 values, such as community stability, employment, natural resources,

 or  the integrity  of the ecosystem.   We  have got to get away from

 the idea that our quantitative analyses provide a hard and fast


     People need  to be given options:   they need to buy into health

 decisions.  If we enlist their imput in developing options, we are

more likely to get their cooperation...and their agreement on an

 acceptable  course of action.

     We might want to  phrase our  question in terms of "Is the risk

of one cancer death...and I emphasize the term risk...per 70,000

over a ten-year period worth keeping a plant open and a hundred

people employed?"

     But we have  also got to get  across the message that if the

water is unsafe,  our job is to close down the source.


     Also  it's  important  that we  in EPA communicate to people

 clearly  just how we make  risk decisions.  Some of the points we

 need to  make are:

     - just what kind of  risk is  acceptable—what people may go

 along with—that requires a choice between alternatives.

     - the .most acceptable alternative then is the most acceptable


     - we don't accept risks, then, we accept the best alterna-

 tive...which probably has some level of risk.

     - the best alternative may not have the least risk, but has

 the best balance of risk and benefit.

     - just what decision is made is specific to each situation...

 though there are enough similar situations that we do have standards

which can occasionally be employed, depending on alternatives,

consequences, values and facts involved.

     -The problem usually comes down to a situation where we

do not have an imminent health problem, a problem that will trigger

EPA action?  In this situation you can present alternatives:  you

can buy drinking water and cooking water.

     - At all times, we have to say "We don't know" when that is

the case.  We can't say with assurance at any time whether such

levels are safe, unsafe.   If levels are extremely high we can make

a determination that there is a limited health threat, but it's

at the lower levels where we don't have enough data to give a


 scientifically rigorous answer.   Low-level  organic  contaminant

 problems must be addressed on a  chemical  by chemical,  situation  by

 situation basis, even where we have  a  water supply  that  is  okay,

 but next to a dump site,  for example.   But  we  must  continue to


 Another  tip here;   ask the audience  even  before  you start what they

 believe  the problem is.  This will narrow the  issues...and  may

 even  help get rid  of  any  totally  erroneous  perceptions that people

 may have upfront.

 #3   Be Careful  How You Present Risks

 Question:  "What happens if our children are exposed to dioxin?"

 Video;   "The  risk  of  children contracting cancer from long  term

 exposure to dioxin is double that of adults."

      The thing  to  remember here  is that double a very small number

 is  still a  very small number.  The way  risks and options are

 presented  influences  perceptions.  You might be  worried  if  you

 heard that  occupation exposure at your  job  doubled  your  risk of

 serious  disease.   You might  be less worried if you  heard that it

 had increased from one in  a  million  to  two  in  a  million.  Something

 else  to  think about:   probabilities can also be  express  in  positive


 #4  Be Helpful

Question:   "Our  homes  won't  be worth a nickel, if you approve this

site I"

Video:   "We know you  are worried  about the  impact of this new


 hazardous waste  facility on  property values,  but  EPA  can  only  be

 concerned as to  whether  the  facility meets  technical  requirements

 or  not."

      Anticipate  the  kinds of questions  that will  be asked,  and

 spend some time  finding  out  the  answers.  You can anticipate,  for

 example,  that many questions may have nothing to  do with  your

 specific  responsibilities.

      Health concerns are often a surrogate  for other  concerns

 that  people have.  Not all the discussion and debate  about  risks

 are really motivated by  health concerns.  People  worry  about other

 things—there are often  hidden agendas  which  need to  be surfaced.

   Take some time, maybe an  hour or  two, before you get to  a meet-

 ing or hearing.  Place yourself  mentally in the shoes of  the people.

 Try and get into their mindset.   This will  help you to  develop

 empathy.   They need  to perceive  you  as  a caring and concerned

 person...one who may  not have all the answers,  but one  who

 understands the problem  and  who  really  is trying  to help

 solve their problems.  "Good  faith"  is  the  key.

 #5  Be Honest

Question;   "Now answer this  straight—would you allow your  kids

 to play in  this water?"

Video:  "Would I allow my kids to play  in this  water?  I  don't

believe it would have any long term  impact  on  them."

     One EPA official recently was asked about  the poisoning of a

creek, refused to answer whether  the  creek  was  safe.  He  answered


 that even though EPA discovered relative  small  amounts  of  chemicals
 "that doesn't mean it's safe for your  kids  to play  here."  Pressed
 on the subject,  he added "I  know I  would  not want my  kids  playing
 or fishing  in a  creek where  poisons and carcinogens have been
 found,"  he  said.
                          * * *
      In  talking  with EPA field  personnel  who regularly  confront  the
 problem  of  how to  best  communicate  information  about  risk  to people
 in communities,  some general guidelines emerge  that you might want
 to consider:
     •- It's important to outline a  course of action:  what EPA
 intends  to  do  now  and if  the situation changes.
      - It is  especially important not  to  shoot  from the hip on
 health question's  especially if  you're going into a situation cold.
 As one EPA  field coordinator said,  "You're  setting  yourself up
 for a failure, if  you do."   If you  know that there  are  concerns
 for health  impacts,  then -you should bring along with  you the
 appropriate person to answer the question.
     - As a project  manager,  field  people insist, you do wonders
 for your credibility  by saying "I don't know, but I will try to get
 the person who does  know  in  here  to talk  about  that."   And you also
 say "there is  no right answer or wrong answer,   it's a very complex
 issue, and I will  try and get the person  who can best address some
of your conerns and put them  in the proper perspective."
    - Even though  health  impacts are not  our specific area of
expertise, we  have'an implicit obligation to bring  in outside ex-

perts  from CDC and  the appropriate state health agency to answer

the questions.

     - Those outside persons might give a range of answers, all

the way from "on the short term, it probably doesn't mean a thing1

tp "its high enough that we are going to shut it off" or 'we

will give you potable water" or "we really don't know."

     - You are trying to protect the citizen's interests and

balance them against the bureaucratic maze and the questions of

why can't we do something in the government.

     - Just because we've found something, we can't always take

action.  We often must act on scientific feeling.


     We are still at the frontier in trying to improve our credi-

bility in communicating health effects information to the public.

     We will get better at this if we make sincere efforts to

keep in mind that our main job...is to protect public health...

nothing is more important...not even bureaucratic requirements.

            --William D. Ruckelshaus

                      Vital    Speeches   of   the   Day
                                                     REG u s r AT.on.
APRIL], 1964
                                                                                                                NO. 12
                               Risk  in  a  Free  Society
                                              A RESERVOIR OF TRUST
                 By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       Delivered at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, February 18. 1984
    IT is now a commonplace of political discourse that techno-
    logical advances have had a profound effect on our demo-
    cratic institutions. Mass communications is the familiar ex-
 ample. But I would like to draw your attention to another way in
 which technology may impinge upon a democratic society, or.e
 that is perhaps as serious, if more subtle; one that commands a
 huge proportion of my own attention. J refer to the chemical
 products and by-products of modern technology and the poten-
 tial  social disruption associated with the  processes we have
 created to control them.
   When I began my current, and second, tenure as Administra-
 tor of EPA, my first goal was the restoration of public confi-
 dence in the Agency, and  it was  impressed upon  me that
 straightening out the way we handled health risk was central to
 achieving it. Needless to say, EPA's primary mission is  the
 reduction of risk, whether to public health or the environment.
 Some in  America were  afraid. They were afraid that toxic
 chemicals in die environment were affecting their health, and
 more important, they suspected that the facts about the risks
 from such chemicals were not being accurately  reported to
 them, mat policy considerations were being inappropriately
 used in such reports, so as to make the risks seem less than they
 were and excuse the Agency from taking action. Even worse,
 some people thought that the processes we had established to
 protect public health were being abused for crass political gain.
   Whether this was true or not is almost  beside the  point; a
 substantial number of people believed it. Now in a society such
as ours, where the people ultimately decide policy— what they
        want done about a particular situation — the fair exposition of
        policy choices is the job of public agencies. The public agency
        is the repository of the  facts; you can't operate a democratic
        society, particularly a complex technological one, unless you
        have such a repository. Above all, the factual guardian must be
        trusted; a failure of trust courts chaos. Chaos, in turn, creates its
        own thirst for order, which craving in its more extreme'forms
        threatens the very  foundation of democratic freedom. So in a
        democracy a public agency that is not trusted, especially where
        the protection of public health is concerned, might as well close
        its doors.
          I  described a possible solution to this problem last June in a
        speech to the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy had
        staled in  a recent report that Federal agencies had often con-
        fused the assessment of risk with the management of risk. Risk
        assessment is the use of a base of scientific research to define
        the  probability  of some  harm coming to  an individual or a
        population as a result of exposure to a substance or situation.
        Risk management, in contrast, is the public process of deciding
        what to do where risk has been determined  to exist. It includes
        integrating risk  assessmeni with considerations of engineering
        feasibility and figuring out how to  exercise our imperative to
        reduce risk in ihe light of social, economic, and political fac-
          The report proposed that these two functions be formally
        separated within regulator)' agencies. I said that this appeared to
        be a workable idea and that we would try to make it happen at
        EPA. This notion was attractive because the statutes adminis-
                                           POLICY OF VITAL SPEECHES
     The publishers of Vital Speeches believe that the important addresses of the recognized leaden of public opinion constitute the bcsl expression of
 contemporary thought in America, and that it is extremely important for (he welfare of the nation that these speeches be permanently recorded and disseminated.
 The publishers have no axe to grind. Vital Speeches will be found authentic  and constructive.
     II is the policy of the publishers! to cover both sides of public questions and to print all speeches in full. Where it is necessary to condense a speech for
 reasons of unusual length or the use of extraneous matter, it H ill be so staled when printing. The) feel thai it is only in the unedited and uncxpurgaied speech that
 Ihe reader can best obtain the views of the speaker.
     This material gives the reader the best thoughts of the best minds on current national problems. It also offers Ihe student of public speaking examples of the
 effective speech of today of those who have attained leadership in ihe fields of economics, politics, education, sociology, government, criminology, finance.
 business, taxation, health, law, labor, etc. Thus the student of public speaking obtains the finest text book material with a sound know ledge of public questions.
     Subscribers are urged to call the Editor's attention to any speeches which have impressed them as outstanding so that copies mav be secured for review.
     VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAV is published twice a  month by the CITY NEWS PUBLISHING CO.. (Inc. 1911). Box 606. Southold. N. Y. 11971.
 Telephone 516-765-2890. Genevieve T. Daly, President. Joyce Fox". Vice-Prcsidenl. Thomas F. Daly. Hi. Secretar>-Treasurer.
 VITAL SPEECHES (ISSN OM2-742X)                	
     Subscription Rales: S25.00 a year. Canadian one year: $30.00. Single copies St .50. Back issues, if available, within two years S1.70 a copv. beyond two
 years J2.05 each, prior to 1959 S.V60 each. Microfilm editions $ 10.00 per volume plus postage. On order under SI0.00. remittance musi accompany order.
     Vital Speeches is indexed in The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature.  An annual index is printed each  November and distributed u> all subscribers.
 Cumulative Index. Volumes 1-25. S15.00 per copy plus postage. Volume Binder f.>r Vital Speeches $7.50 plus postage. Vila! Speeches will be found on file in
 thousands of public, college and high school  libraries throughout the United Slates.	
     Second Class postage paid at Southold. N. Y. and additional mailing offices POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Cits News Publishing Co.. Box
 606. Southold. N.Y. 11971.


  tered by many Federal regulatory agencies typically force some
  action when scientific inquiry establishes the presence of a risk.
  as, for example, when a substance present in the environment,
  or the workplace or the food chain, is found to cause cancer in
  animals. The statutes may require the agency to act according to
  some protective formula: to establish "margins of safety" or
  "prevent significant risk"  or "eliminate the risk."
    When the action so forced has dire economic or social conse-
  quences, the person who must make the decision may be sorely
  tempted to ask for a "reinteipretation"  of the data. We should
  remember that risk assessment data can be like the captured spy:
  if you torture it long enough, it will tell  you anything you want
  to know. So it is good public policy to so structure an agency
  that such temptation is avoided.
    But we  have found that separating the assessment of risk
  from its management is rather more difficult to accomplish in
  practice. In the first place, values, which are supposed to be
  safely sequestered in risk management, also appear as impor-
  tant influences on the outcomes of risk assessments. For exam-
 ple, let us suppose that a chemical in  common use is tested on
 laboratory animals with the object of determining whether it can
 cause cancer. At the end of the test a proportion of the animals
 that have been exposed to the substance show evidence of tumor
   Now the problems begin. First, in tests like these, the doses
 given are extremely high, often close to the level the animal can
 tolerate for a  lifetime without  dying from toxic non-cancer
 effects. Environmental exposures are typically much lower, so
 in order to determine what the risk of cancer is at such lower
 exposures—that is, to determine the curve that relates a certain
 dose to a certain response — we must extrapolate down from
 the high-dose laboratory data. There are a number of statistical
 models fordoing this, all of which fit the data, and all of which
 are open to debate. We simply do not know what  the shape of
 the dose-response curve is at low doses, in the sense that we
 know, let's say, what the orbit of a satellite will be when we
 shoot it off.
   Next, we must deal with the uncertainty of extrapolating
 cancer data  from animals to man, for example,  determining
 which of the many different kinds of lesions that may appear in
 animals is actually indicative of a probability that the substance
 in question may be a human carcinogen. Cancer is cancer to the
 public, but  not to the pathologist.
   Finally, we must deal with uncertainty about exposure. We
 have to determine, usually on the basis of very scant data, and
 very elaborate  mathematical models, how much of the stuff is
 being produced, how it is  being  dispersed,  changed or de-
 stroyed by  natural  processes, and how the actual dose that
 people get is changed by behavioral or population  characteris-
   These uncertainties inherent in risk assessment  combine to
 produce an  enormously wide range of risk estimates in  most
 cases. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report
 on saccharin concluded that over the next 70 years the expected
 number of cases of human bladder cancer resulting from daily
 exposure  to  120 mg of saccharin  might range from 0.22 to
 1,144,000. This sort of range is of limited use to the policy
 maker and risk  assessment scientists are at some pains to make
choices among possibilities so as to produce conclusions that
are both scientifically supportable and usable.
  Such choices are influenced by values, which may be affect-
ed by professional training, or by ideas about what constitutes
  ' 'good science.'' and, of course by the same complex of experi-
 ence and individual traits that gives rise to personal values in all
 of us. An oncologist, for example, who values highly the ability
 to\Jistinguish between different sorts of lesions, may discount
 certain test results as being irrelevant to decisions about human
 carcinogenicity. A public health epidemiologist may look at the
 same data and come  to quite different conclusions.
   Historically at EPA it has been thought prudent to make what
 have been called conservative assumptions; that is, our values
 lead us, in a situation of unavoidable uncertainty, to couch our
 conclusions in terms  of a plausible upper bound. This means
 that when we generate a number that expresses the potency of
 some substance in causing disease, we can state that it is unlike-
 ly that the risk, projected is any greater.
   This is fine when the risks projected are vanishing!}' small;
 it's  always nice to hear that  some chemical is not a national
 crisis. But when the risks estimated through such assessment!;
 are substantial, so that  some action may be in the offing, the
 stacking of conservative assumptions one on top of another,
 becomes a problem for the policymaker. If 1 am going to  pro-
 pose controls that may have  serious economic and social ef-
 fects, 1 need to have some idea how much confidence should be
 placed in the estimates of risk that prompted those controls. 1
 need to know how likely real damage is to occur in the uncon-
 trolled and partially controlled and fully controlled cases. Only
 then can I apply the balancing judgments that are the essence of
 my job. This, of course, tends to insert the policymaker back
 into the guts of risk assessment, which we've agreed is less than
   This is a real quandry. I now believe that the main road out of
 it lies through a marked improvement in the way we communi-
 cate the realities of risk analysis to the public. The goal is public
 understanding. We will only retain the administrative flexibility
 we need to effectively protect the public health and welfare if
 the public believes we are trying to act in the public interest.
 There is an argument, in contradiction, that the best  way to
 protection lies  in increased legislative specificity, in  closely
 directing  the Agency  as to what to control and how much to
 control it. If we fail to command public confidence, this argu-
 ment will prevail, and  in my opinion it would be a bad thing if it
 did.  You can't squeeze the complexity inherent in managing
 environmental risks between  the pages of a statute book.
  How then do we encourage confidence? Generally speaking
 there are two ways to do it. First, we could assign guardianship
 of the Agency's integrity —  its risk assessment task — to a
 panel of disinterested experts who are above reproach in the
 public eye. This is the  quasi-judicial, blue-ribbon  approach,
 which has a strong tradition in our society. If we have  a com-
 plex issue, we don't have to think about it very much, just give
 it to the experts, who deliberate and provide the answer, which
 most will accept because of the inherent prestige of the pane!.
  The discomfort associated with imagining, in 1984, a con-
clave of Big Brothers to watch over us only slrengfhen.s  my
conviction that such panels cannot serve the general purpose of
restoring and maintaining confidence. It turns out that the  ex-
perts don't agree, so instead of an unimpeachable and disinter-
ested consensus you get dissenting advocacy. Once again,  ex-
perts have values too.
  Alternatively, we could all become a lot smarter about risk.
The Agency could put  much more effort into explaining  what it
is doing and what it does, and does not. know. Here 1  do  not
mean "public involvement" in the usual and formal sense. This

                                                                                   VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY
 is embodied in administrative law and has always been pan of
 our ordinary procedure in promulgating rules. Nor do I mean a
 mere public relations campaign to popularize  Agency deci-
 sions. Public relations smoothes over; I think we need to dig up.
 We have to expose the assumptions that go into risk assess-
 ments.  We have (o admit our uncertainties  and confront the
 public with the complex nature of decisions about  risk.
    Living in a  technological society is tike riding  a bucking
 bronco. ] don't believe we can afford to get off, and 1 doubt thai
 someone will magically appear who can lead it about on a leash.
 The question is: how do we become better bronco busters? 1
 think a great  part  of the answer is to bring about a major
 improvement in the quality of public debate on environmental
   This  will no! be easy. Risk assessment is a probabilistic
 calculation, but people don't respond to risks "as they should"
 jf such calculations were the sole criterion of rationality. Most
 people are not comfortable with mathematical probability as a
 guide (o living and the risk assessment lingo we throw at them
 does not increase their comfort. Tell somebody that their risk of
 cancer from a  70-year exposure to a carcinogen at ambient
 levels ranges between 10~5 and 10"7, and they are likely to
 come back at you with, "Yeah, but will 1 get cancer if I drink
 the water?" Also, attitudes toward risk are subjective and high-
 ly colored by personal experience and other factors not fully-
 captured by risk assessments.
   We have some research on this, which points out that people
 tend to overestimate the probability of unfamiliar, catastrophic
 and well-publicized events and underestimate the  probability of
 unspectacular or familiar events that claim one victim at a time.
 Many people are afraid to fly commercial airlines, but practical-
 ly nobody is afraid of driving in cars, a victory of subjectivity
 over actuarial statistics.
   In general, response to risks is most negative when the degree
 of risk is unknown and the consequences are particularly dread-
 ed. Expert assessment does not seem to help here. People will
 fight  like fury  to keep a hazardous waste facility out of their
 neighborhood, despite expert assurances that it is safe, while
 people living under high dams located on earthquake faults pay
 scant attention to expert warnings.
   Other hazard characteristics influence public perceptions of
 risk. For example, the voluntary or involuntary  nature of the
 risk is  important. People will  accept far greater risks from
 driving an automobile than they will from breathing the emis-
 sions that come out of its tailpipe; the former is voluntary', the
 latter, involuntary. People also take into consideration whether
 the risk  is distributed  generally throughout the population or
 affects only a small  identifiable group. Public response to. the
 discovery of a toxicant that may result in 200 additional cancers
 nationwide is liable to be quite different from public response to
 the same number of cases in one county  with a population of
 say, 3000.
   The way risks and options are presented also influences per-
ceptions. You might be worried if you heard that occupational
exposure at your job doubled your risk of some serious disease;
you might be less worried if you heard that it had increased from
one in a million to two in a million. Surveys using physicians as
 subjects  found  that their preferences for treatment options
changed markedly when the risks of these options  were ex-
pressed in terms of lives saved  rather than in terms of deaths
occurring, even though the two forms of expression thai were
compared were mathematically identical. Finally, research has
 shown that beliefs about risk are slow to change, and show
 extraordinary persistence in the face of contrary evidence.
 .  Many people interested in environmental protection, having
 observed this mess, conclude that considerations of risk lead to
 nothing useful.  After all. if the numbers are no good and the
 whole, issue is so confusing, why not just eliminate all exposure
 to toxics to the extent that technology allows? The problem with
 such thinking is that, even setting aside what I have just said
 about the  necessity for improving the national debate on the
 subject, risk estimates arc the only way we have of directing the
 attention of risk management agencies toward significant prob-
   There are thousands of substances in the environment that
 show toxicity in animals; we can't work on all of them at once,
 even with an EPA ten times its current size. More important,
 technology doesn't make the  bad stuff "go away:" in most
 cases it just changes its  form  and location. We have to start
 keeping track of the flow of toxics through the environment, to
 what happens after they are "controlled." Risk managemcnl is
 the only way I know to do this.
   In confused situations one must try to be guided by basic
 principles. One of my basic principles is reflected in a quotation
 from Thomas Jefferson: "If we think (the people) not enlight-
 ened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discre-
 tion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their
 discretion." Easy for Aim to say. As we have seen, informing
 discretion about risk has itself a high risk of failure.
   However, we do have  some recent experience that supports
 the belief that better information  inclines people to act more
 sensibly. In Tacoma, Washington, we have a situation where a
 copper smelter employing around 600 people is emitting sub-
 stantial amounts of arsenic, which is a human carcinogen. We
 found that the best available technology did not reduce the risk
 of cancer to levels the public might find acceptable. In fact, it
 looked as if reducing to acceptable levels of risk might only be
 possible if the plant closed. 1 felt very strongly that the people in
 Tacoma whose lives were to be affected by my decision ought
 to have a deeper understanding of the case than they could get
 from the usual public hearing  process.
   Accordingly,  we organized an extraordinary campaign1 of
 public education in Tacoma. Besides the required public hear-
 ing, we provided immense quantities of information to all com-
 munications media, arranged  meetings between community
 leaders and senior EPA officials, including  myself, and* held
 three workshops at which we laid out our view of the facts. I
 think most people appreciated this opportunity, and we certain-
 ly raised the level of discussion about risk. So unusual was this
 kind  of event thai some  inferred that I was abdicating my
 responsibility for this decision, or that somehow the Tacoma
 people were going to vote on whether they wanted jobs or
 health. After some initial confusion on this score we made it
 clear that it was entirely my decision, and that while 1 wanted to
 hear, 1 was not committed to heed.
   Although I suppose some would have been happier continu-
 ing in their fond belief that we could provide absolute  safety
 with absolute certainty, and were  disturbed by these proceed-
 ings, in all I would call  it  a  qualified success. Those who
participated came away  with  a better understanding of the
anatomy of environmental decisions, and local groups were
able to come up with options that increased protection while
allowing the plant to remain open, options that are well worth
considering as we pui together our final decision.

    Wh'at are the lessons of Tacoma? Shortly after we began the
 workshops,  people  started  sporting   buttons  that  said.
 "BOTH," meaning they were for both jobs and health. I took
 this as a good sign, that people were attending to the balance
 between economic realities and  environmental protection.
 "Both"  is a good idea, and in most cases we can have it. if
 we're smart. Another lesson is that we must improve the way
 we present risk calculations to the public. There was too much
 tendency to translate risks of cancer into cases, with no regard
 to qualifying assumptions  and uncertainties. Cancer threats
 make great headlines and the inclination to infer certainty where
 none exists is very powerful. We must take seriously our obli-
 gation  to generate  lucid and unambiguous statements about
 risk. Finally, Tacoma shows that we have to prepare ourselves
 for the other Tacomas. Environmental  stress falls unevenly
 across the land and we have a special responsibility to people in
 communities that suffer more than their share. We are prepared
,to make  the extra effort in  such communities, as we did  in
   We must also improve debate on the national level. This may
 prove more difficult,  as Washington is a most contentious
 place. Also, at the national level things tend to polarize perhaps
 more than they should, given how much  we know about envi-
 ronmental health questions.  Typically, where we obtain  evi-
 dence of an environmental  threat, opinion divides  between
 those who want to eliminate the risk as quickly as possible, with
 little concern about cost, and those who deny the threat exists.
 Fights between these groups can go on for a long time, time
 during which the object of the battle, the pollutant, remains in
 the environment. Acid rain  threatens to  become  this kind of
   And so too was the case of ethylene dibromide.  As you may
 know, we recently banned the major uses of EDB, a grain and
 fruit fumigant thai has been identified as a  carcinogen,  and
 which enters the human diet through residues in food and via
 groundwater contamination.  By means of that ban, which ap-
 plied to grain fumigation, we insured that EDB would immedi-
 ately begin to diminish in the  human food  supply. Since there is
 still EDB in the grain products already in storage or on grocers'
 shelves, we set maximum acceptable residue levels for different
products, the levels getting lower in products closer to the point
of consumption. We will act soon on the use of EDB as a citrus
fruit fumigant, its only remaining use in connection  with the
human food chain.
   Needless to say, we were criticized both for going too far and
for not going far enough. But in cases such as this, my personal
predilection  is to avoid the  extremes  and act to  reduce, as
quickly as possible, environmental exposure to substances that
appear unacceptably risky, and to do so with as little social or
economic disruption as  possible. This generally-.satisfies no
one. but I am convinced it is in the long  term public inierest.
   What was dissatisfying about the EDB case was the substan-
tial confusion surrounding the risk issues involved. Some say
that we stir up cans of worms when we expose the risk judg-
ments we make. 1 think we must do better than we have done,
and let the worms crawl where they may.  Let me now propose
some principles for more reasonable discussions about risk.
   First, we must insist on risk calculations being expressed as
distributions of estimates and  not as magic numbers that can be
manipulated without regard to what they really mean. We must
try to display more realistic estimates of risk to show a range of
probabilities. To help do this we need new tools for quantifying
 and ordering sources of uncertainty and for putting them in
   'Second, we must expose to public scrutiny the assumptions
 that.underly our analysis and management of risk. If we have
 made a scries of conservative assumptions within the risk as-
 sessment, so that it represents an upper bound estimate of risk.
 we should try to communicate this and explain why we did it.
 Although public health protection is our primary value, any
 particular action to control a pollutant may have effects on other
 values, such as community  stability, employment, natural
 resources, or the integrity of the ecosystem. We have to get
 away from the idea that we do quantitative analysis to find the
 "right" decision, which we will then be obliged to make if we
 want to call ourselves rational beings. But we are not clockwork
 mandarins. The point of such analysis is, in fact, the orderly-
 exposition of the values we hold, and the reasoning that travels
 from some set of values and  measurements to a decision.
   Third, we must demonstrate that reduction of risk is our main
 concern and that  we are not driven by narrow cost-benefit
 considerations.  Of course cost is a factor, because we are
 obliged to be efficient with our resources and those of society in
 general. Where we decline to control some risk at present, we
 should do so only because there are better targets; we are really
 balancing risk against risk, aiming to get at the greatest first.
   Finally, we should understand  the limits of quantification;
 there are some cherished values that will resist being squeezed
 into a benefits column, but are no less real because of it. Waiter
 Lippman once pointed out that in a democracy "the people" as
 in "We the People," refers not only to the working  majority
 that actually makes current decisions, and not only to the whole
 living population, but to those who came before us. who pro-
 vided our traditions and our physical patrimony as a nation, and
 to those who will come after us, and inherit. Many of the major
 decisions we make  on environmental affairs touch  on  this
 broader sense of public  responsibility.
   I suppose that the ultimate goal of this effort is to get the
 American people to understand the difference between a safe
 world and a zero-risk world with respect to environmental pol-
 lutants. We  have to define what  safe  means in light of our
 increasing ability to detect minute quantities of substances in
 the environment and to associate carcinogenesis with an enor-
 mous variety of substances in common use. According to Bruce
 Ames,  the biochemist and cancer expert, the human diet is
 loaded with toxics of all kinds, including many carcinogens,
 mutagens and teratogens. Among  them are such foodstuffs as
 black pepper, mushrooms, celery, parsnips, peanut butter, figs,
 parsley, potatoes, rhubarb.coffee,  tea. fats, browned meat, and
 alfalfa sprouts. The list  goes on; my point is that it would be
 hard to find a diet that would support life and at the same time
 impose no risk on the consumer.
  So what is safe? Are we all safe at this instant? Most of us
 would agree that we are, although  we are subjected to  calcula-
 ble risks of various sorts of catastrophes that can happen to
 people listening  to lectures in buildings. We might be able to
 reduce  some of them by additional effort, but in general we
 consider that we have {to coin a phrase) an ' 'adequate margin of
 safety" sitting in a structure  that is, for example, protected
 against lightning bolts but exposed to meteorites.
  I think we can get people to start making those judgments of
 safety about the arcane products of modem technology. I don't
think we are ever going to get agreement about values: a con-
tinuing  debate about values is the essence of a democratic

                                                                               VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

policy. But 1 think we must do belter in showing how different   that we have exposed our values to their view, and that we have
values lead rationally to different policy outcomes. And we can   respected their values, whether or not such values can be incor-
only do that if we are able to build up a reservoir of trust, if   porated^ finally in our decisions. We have, I hope,  begun to
people believe that we have presented what facts we have fairly,   build that sort of trust at EPA.

            —Frank Corrado



          1- Notices get "Lost" in mail

                   -Problem in format

                   -Do not explain process clearly

          2- Poor design

          3- "Radio Spots", "Classified Ads" don't work


 j        1- Redesign notices

          2- Re-write notices

          3- Use display ads

          4- Use "Public Service Announcements"

                                 PUBLIC NOTICE                   —	
 The United States Environmental Protection Agency  (U.S. EPA), Region V, is
 hereby giving notice of its' intent to issue a Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Act (RCRA) permit for Reichhold Chemicals,  Incorporated,  (RCI).
 This permit would allow RCI to store hazardous waste at Collins  Road, Morris,
 Illinois, in accordance with Section 7004 of the RCRA and Title  40 CFR Section
 124.10.  RCI has been legally storing hazardous waste under "interim status",
 as provided for in Section 3005(e) of the RCRA.  The U.S. EPA is inviting
 comment on the application, on the terms, and on the conditions, of the
 proposed draft  permit.   Locational  issues,  with the  exception of seismic and
 floodplain considerations, are not  within the scope  of review under the

 Reichhold Chemicals  is  a manufacturer of  an organic  chemical (maleic Anhydride)
 and synthetic resins  (unsaturated  polyesters,  PVA/Acrylic Emulsions, and
 Cyclized  Rubber).  The  permit  would authorize  Reichhold Chemicals to store
 16,720  gallons  of  waste  polyester resin in  containers and waste acid sludge
 in a 5200-gaUon steel storage tank.

 RCI's application, the U.S.  EPA's draft permit, and  the Statement of Basis
 are  available for  public review at  the Morris  Public Library, 604 Liberty
 Street, Morris, Illi'nois.   Please contact Ms.  Pam Wilson at (815) 942-6880),
 for assistance.  These materials and other  supporting documents are also
 available in the administrative record at the  U.S.  EPA,  Region V, Waste
 Management Division, 13th Floor, 230 South  Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
 60604, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30  p.r ., Monday .through Friday.  Please contact
 Barbara Russell  at (312) 886-694f.

A public hearing on U.S. EPA's d>aft permit for Reichhold Chemicals will be
 held on Tuesday, September 20, 1! 83, at the Morris  Court  House,  111 East
 Washington Street, Morris,  Illin.is.  The hearing will start at  7:00 p.m.,

  and will continue until all persons who have registered  have  had an opportunity
  to present their comments for the record.   Speakers  should register by 7:00
  p.m., limit their oral presentations to five minutes,  and submit 2 copies of
  their oral presentations to the U.S. EPA at the  hearing  in written form. The
  U.S. EPA reserves the right to cancel  the hearing  if written  opposition to
  the draft permit and a written request for a hearing is  not received by
  September 5, 1983.  "if the hearing is  cancelled, notice  will  be published in
  the Morris Herald  and broadcast over  radio station  WCSJ-AM.

  Comments on the application and the draft  permit,  as well as  notification of
,  intent  to provide oral  comments at the hearing,  will be  accepted by the U.i>.
  EPA during  the public comment period,  which commences  on July 22, 1983, and
 'ends  on September 25, 1983.   All  comments  submitted, for consideration by the
  U.S.  EPA, must be received by September 8,  1983. Comments should be sent to
  Barbara Russell, U.S. EPA,  Region V, 5HW-13,  230 South Dearborn Street.
  Chicago,  Illinois 60604.
  After the close of the  public comment  period, the  U.S. EPA will evaluate all
  comments  received before  issuing  a final permit  decision.  Notification
  of  the  final permit  decision  will  be provided to each  person  who presented
  oral  testimony  at  the hearing,  submitted written comments, or requested
  notice  of the  decision.  Under Title 40 CFR  Section  124.17, U.S. EPA will
  respond to  all  significant comments  on the  draft permit, specify which
  provisions  of the  permit were changed, and  indicate whether additional
  documents have  been  included  in the  administrative record.
  The U.S.  EPA's  response, regarding a decision to issue or deny a permit
  will include a  reference to the procedure"for appealing the decision, Title
 -40 CFR Section  124.19.  The U.S.  EPA's procedures  for public  comment and
  hearings  are found in Title 40  CFR Sections  124.11 through 124.13.



 A  Public  Hearing             EM£ama

 That May Be  Important

 to  You

 EPA plans to issue a permit for an existing hazardous waste site at
 Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. on Collins Road in Morris, Illinois.

 September 20.1983

 111E. Washington  St., Morris (Court House)
 7 p.m.

 If you plan to speak....please register before 7 p.m.
 You will have five  minutes to speak...also please have 2 copies of
 your presentation in writing if possible.

 Reichhold makes an organic chemical (maleic Anhydride) and synthetic
 resins (unsaturated polyesters, PVA/Acrylic Emulsions, and Cyclized
 Rubber). This permit would authorize the company to store 16,720 gallons
 of waste polyester resin in containers and waste acid sludge in a
 5200-gallon chemical storage tank.
 You can see the company's  draft permit at the Morris Public Library, 604
 Liberty St., ahead of time. Call Ms. Pam Wilson at (815) 942-6880 for more
 information. The permit and  other supporting documents are also available
 in the administrative record at the U.S. EPA. Region 5, Waste
 Management Division, 13th Floor, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
 Illinois 60604, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,  Monday through Friday. Please
 contact Barbara Russell at (312) 886-6940.
 The U.S. EPA reserves the right to cancel the hearing if written opposition
 to the draft permit and a written request for a  hearing is not received by
 September 5, 1983. If the hearing is cancelled, notice will be published in
 the Morris Herald and broadcast over radio station WCSJ-AM.
 Comments on the  application and the draft permit, as well as notification
 of intent to provide oral comments at the hearing, will be accepted by the
 U.S. EPA during the public comment period, which commences on July
 22, 1983, and ends on September 25, 1983. All comments submitted, for
 consideration by the U.S. EPA, must be received by September 8, 1983.
 Comments should  be sent to Barbara Russell.  U.S. EPA, Region 5,
 5HW-13. 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,  Illinois 60604.
 After the close  of the public comment period, the U.S. EPA will evaluate all
 comments received before issuing a final permit decision. Notification of
 the final  permit decision will be provided to each person who presented
 oral testimony at the hearing, submitted written comments, or requested
 notice of the decision. EPA will respond to all significant comments on the
draft permit, specify which provisions of the permit were changed, and
 indicate whether additional documents have been included in the
 administrative record.
The US. EPA's response, regarding a^decisioni  to issue or deny a permit
will include information for. appealing the decision.

            --Frank Corrado

                     PREPARING OPENING REMARKS
 People  expect  bureaucrats  to talk in jargon.  It's a stereo-
 type  that  we help  perpetuate with the kinds of opening state-
 ments we make  at public meetings and hearings.  Most often
 they  sound like some  legal brief rather than a clear state-
 ment  of what is about to take place, why we are here, what
 it  is that we  hope to accomplish.  A clear, easy-to-under-
 stand opening  statement can go a long way in helping estab-
 lish  your  credibility with an audience and helping them to
 relate  to  you  as an EPA representative.  Below are two open-
 ing statements:  one  is the traditional kind that is pres-
 ented,  the other has been  rewritten in a more easy to under-
 stand,  "friendly"  style.   Both convey the same amount of

Will the hearing please come
to order.  Good evening
ladies and gentlemen.  My
name is Tom Bishop, and I am
the hearing officer repre-
senting the Chicago office
of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
The purpose of tonight's
hearing is to receive your
comments on U.S. EPA's in-
tent to issue a Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act permit to General Port-
land, Inc.  With, me this
evening is Tom Johnson, the
primary author of U.S. EPA's
draft permit.

Under the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, com-
monly referred to as RCRA,
U.S. EPA has promulgated
regulations to protect human
health and the environment
from the improper management
of hazardous waste.  Section
3005 of RCRA, along with
regulations found in Title 40

Will the hearing please come
to order.  Good evening ladies
and gentlemen.  My name is Tom
Bishop, and I am the hearing
officer representing the Chicago
office of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  We're here
tonight to listen to what you
have to say about our plan to
issue a Resource, Conservation
and Recovery Act permit to Gen-
eral Portland, Inc.  With me to-
night is the author of U.S.  •
EPA's draft permit, Tom Johnson.
Mr. Johnson  will you identify
yourself to the audience.

Under federal law and regula-
tions,, we are responsible for
managing a permitting system
that governs the treatment,
storage and disposal of hazard-
ous wastes.  These regulations
allow us to issue or deny per-
mits for hazardous waste facil-

I want to make it clear that we
at EPA have nothing to say about


 of the Code of  Federal  Regu-
 lations,  establish a  permit-
 ting  system governing the
 treatment,  storage, and dis-
 posal of  hazardous waste.
 These regulations enable
 U.S.  EPA  to issue or  deny
 permits for hazardous waste
 facilities.     -«

 If a  state  is authorized
 under Section 3006 of RCRA,
 it may issue or deny  permits
 in place  of U.S. EPA.   Since
 the State of Ohio has not
 yet received the required
 authorization,  U.S. EPA is
 responsible for acting  on
 the General Portland  Permit

 If  U.S. EPA grants General
 Portland  a  permit, General
 Portland  will be able to
 store  certain hazardous
 wastes  at its Paulding, Ohio
 facility  which  is located on
 County  Road 176,  If  General
 Portland  is  granted a permit,
 it  must comply  with all the
 conditions  contained  in the
 permit.  These  conditions in
 turn must satisfy the re-
 quirements  found in Title 40
 of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regu-
 lations.  Some  of these re-
 quirements  include:    the
 proper  design,  operation, and
maintenance  of  General  Port-
 land's  storage  facility;
 accident prevention and, pre-
 paredness; closure;  and
 financial responsibility,
 among others.

where such sites are located.
All we are allowed to do is
to ensure that the company
seeking the permit has met
our regulations for handling
those wastes.

Under the Resource, Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act law...
we call it RCRA for short...
we can issue or deny a permit
to operate.  Since the State
of Ohio has not yet assumed
management of this program,
we at EPA are responsible for
acting on the application of
General Portland.

If U.S. EPA gives General
Portland a permit, General
Portland will be able to
store certain hazardous
wastes at its Paulding, Ohio
facility which is located on
County Road 176.  If we do
grant the company a permit,
the company must comply with
all of the conditions con-
tained in the permit.  Some
of these requirements relate
to proper design, operation
and maintenance of General
Portland's storage facility;
accident prevention and pre-
paredness; closure and finan-
cial responsibility, among

Before we ask for your com-
ments, Mr. Johnson will pre-
sent the background on Gen-
eral Portland's permit appli-l-


Before accepting comments
from the audience Mr. Slaus-
tas will present the back-
ground on General Portland's
permit application and on
U.S. EPA's draft permit.
Following that, I will give
you a summary of U.S. EPA's
public participation re-
quirements, and we will then
accept comments from the
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you Tom.
I will now briefly summarize
U.S. EPA's public partici-
pation procedures.

cation and on U.S. EPA's
draft permit.  After that, I
will give you a summary of
U.S. EPA's public participa-
tion requirements, and we
will then take your comments,
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you.

              —Frank Corrado


0  Strategy;
   Always hold a public meeting in advance of a public
   hearing; meetings are informal and assist in educating
   people about issues.

   Hearings are formal.  Testimony-taking activities
   required by law/regulation.  They are not interactive
   and do not mitigate conflict.

0  Before a Hearing/Meeting;
      -  Do your homework [Know what you're walking into]
      -  Understand what the issues, are in the community
         Know who the cast of characters are
         Brief local officials
         Decide on-what support is needed:  press, legal,
         policy,  etc.

0  Setting up and Running Meetings;
   1.   Try and bring all interests together
           Encourage concise, visual technical presentations
           Try to get to interests as well as positions

   2.   Pick the right location
        -  Not gyms         .
           Churches, libraries
           Arrange facilities to aid communications

3.  Have appropriate handouts — people like to walk
    out with something in their hands
    - Summary
    - Graphics
    - Fact Sheets

4.  Mark everything clearly
    - Lots of signs
    - Take nothing for granted

5.  Set up registration/hearing clerkdesk
    - Make everyone sign in
    - Go in order after public officials

6.  'Mike'  podium and hearing officer
    - Use gavel
    - Have command presence

7.  Call on public officials according to rank

8.  Have an easy to understand opening statement
    - Use "We",  "Y-ou11
    - Spell out EPA's responsibilities
    - Don't talk down

  9.  Treat witness equally—conveys objectivity

      - Cross examine when necessary

      - Keep "distance"

      - Make sure technical witness uses visuals to explain

        process and technology

 10.  Let people vent anger, but do hot "play psychologist"

      - Don't be "Big Nurse"

 11.  Maintain control

      - Allow people to vent anger, but stay in charge

      - Emphasize rights of group

      - Acknowledge grievances

 12.  Be prepared for tough questions

 13.  Be responsive to news media

      - But do not allow to be disruptive

 14.  Emphasize fairness

      - Show people that the process is fair

 15.  Stay until it's over, talk informally with participants

0  Stay in Touch

      - Commit to a date for feedback

      - Explain the decision-making process and when outcome
        will be announced

      - Give names and phone numbers for followups

      - If commitments can't be met, explain why via
        written correspondence or through groups or via



1.  Consider the objectives of the meeting, the content and

format of the presentations, and the desired amount of

citizen participation.  How the room is set-up affects the

tone of the meeting; in planning .the setup of the meeting

room it should be arranged to encourage good interchange

between citizens and officials.  For example;

0   If the meeting involves citizens who have a strong

    understanding of the issues, then a highly interactive

    meeting may be feasible and desirable.  Seats may be

    arranged in a semicircle around the speaker to facil-

    itate discussion.

                             X X

               XXX                  XXX

0  If the meeting involves citizens who do not have a strong

   issue background and who are coming primarily for infor-

   mation, a more formal setup may be desirable.

— If more than 100 people are expected, a classroom


 style setup  (speakers in the front, audience in rows)
 could be effective.



If there are fewer than 100 people expected, use a
classroom style (audience in rows with tables for
taking notes).




      X X X X

2.  Arrive early—at least two hours—to ensure that
everything is in order.
    *  Set up chairs in appropriate format
    0  Check on room temperature
    0  Check on lights, public address, and other needed
       equipment (e.g., projectors, screen)
    0  Check to see if the tape recorder is working, if a
       court recorder is present, and that a reporting
       stand has been set up

       —Merle S. Lefkoff

                  PUBLIC  MEETINGS.

The most common type of agency-sponsored public meeting is
the public hearing.  A hearing  is  generally  held  to relay
information  to  the  public  after  a  decision  has  already
been made and the hearing format is usually rigid and con-
ducive to emotional  posturing.   Unfortunately,  these  are
the types of meetings expected  by  the  general  public,  and
they don't like them.  We don't like them, either, and sug-
gest that they be used only to fulfill a legal requirement.


There are better ways to structure a  large meeting {50 or
more people) which will  encourage  both information disse-
mination and participant feedback.   We will discuss sever-
al of these, with special emphasis on small group formats.

1.   Briefing Meeting.  This is a less formal alternative
     to a public hearing, which allows an informal presen-
     tation from agency representatives, followed by a
     question and answer period which gives ample time to
     the audience to respond to the briefing.

2.   Panel Meeting.  The agency may select a panel of dis-
     cussants who represent a wide variety of viewpoints.
     Questions from the audience may then be directed to-
     ward individual panel members.

3.   Large_ G_rpup_/Small Groups.  If the agency wants to go
     beyond information dissemination and obtain real
     feedback from a large group, the larger group can be
     broken down into smaller groups for purposes of dis-
     cussion.  The groups can be broken down by random
     assignment, or if the agency knows who the attendees
     will be ahead of time, small groups may be preselect-
     ed to insure a balance of interests.

The format usually involves 30  minutes  or  so of presenta-
tions  to  the  large group,  followed by one hour  (or more)
of small group discussion, concluding with a report to the
large group reassembled.

Seating Arrangements.   The public  hearing  format usually
has the  audience seated  in  an  auditorium-style arrange-
ment, with one  microphone  placed  strategically  up front.
There are also  podiums,  flags,  etc. -  all  the  trappings,
in other.words, which create a  formal distance between the
agency and the public.

For alternative  large-group  meetings,  there  are seating
arrangements'which encourage interaction.
                   O  O  C C
                   „	i    •  o  o  -
     ^ °   c' -s                     £  c? .
     <-£  C    ^ c     _     r  ^ 0   o   °
       " c  L*2L ^   ^  ^     "    r~r* £   ^

             0 c  [7?i o  c  c  c  £
                      *   FIGURE A
Figure A  shows an  arrangement  less formal  than  an audi-
torium seating style, with  microphones  placed throughout
the audience,  making  it  easier to engage  the  audience in

Another,  more  comfortable  arrangement,  is  to  seat people
at small circular  tables in  a  large  room,  (similar  to a
banquet)  which puts them more at ease  and induces informal
one-on-one interaction as well.  The tables  can also serve
as the focus for small group discussions.

The Meeting Record*   Most  large  public hearings are elec-
tronically recorded in some way, transcribed, and publish-
ed as a whole  in an indigestible record  which no one could
possibly read.  Either that, or some poor secretary is  des-

perately  trying  to take  minutes,  identify  speakers,  and
make sense out of what is being said.

An extremely effective alternative  for  recording the com-
ments at a meeting is the use of flip charts to summarize.
Meeting participants have the  progress  of the meeting be-
fore them  (tear  sheets should  be  hung  up  if  possible),
have the  opportunity to  verify the  accuracy of  what  is
being written  as  they  go along, and  have a clear summary
which then serves as the meeting record.   The tear sheets
can also be transcribed and mailed to meeting participants
later as feedback from the agency.

Small Group Meetings.  Most of the meetings you will like-
ly be holding  are meetings with  groups of  less  than 50.
There are  three  basic  kinds  of small group meetings, de-
pending on what the purpose of the meeting  is:
1}   briefing meeting *• designed to inform the public and
     answer questions;
2)   interactive planning meeting - designed to encourage
     a free exchange of information among all partici-
     pants, with maximum opportunity for public input
     into the agency's planning process;
3)   consensus formation/negotiation meeting - designed
     in anticipation of the need for resolving conflict
     among participants and reaching some kind of con-
     sensus or negotiated agreement..
The techniques which you decide to use to create .the meet-
ing format  largely depend on  the purpose  of  the meeting
and the desired result.  Below are brief explanatory notes
about some useful techniques for small group meetings.

1.   Charette.  This involves a highly intensive meeting
     or series of meetings, often in a "retreat" atmos-
     phere, where a small group finds mutual agreement on
     an overall plan.  Many charettes alternate periods of
     intense discussion with periods of informal sociali-

     zing, which helps build a close "team".  The charette
     participants should be a broadly representative group,
     and they should come in to the meeting expecting a
     give-and-take resulting in mutual agreement.

2.   'Delphi Process.  This process is not a "meeting"
     format, but it serves the same purpose.  It was de-
     signed to by-pass the group dynamic by using question-
     naire to obtain a consensus of opinion from a panel
     of experts about an issue or problem.

     The usual procedure is for a small group of experts
     to design a questionnaire, which is then sent to a
     larger group.  The questionnaire is generally very
     unstructured and open-ended.  The responses are then
     analyzed by the design team, with particular atten-
     tion to the reasoning of any respondents who may
     differ from the rest of the group.,  A follow-up
    -questionnaire is then prepared and mailed, which sum-
     marizes the first "round" of the delphi.  The pro-
     cess then continues for several more rounds if nec-
     essary, until the team has enough information.

     The delphi process is useful when many diverse opin-
     ions are sought and it would be logistically diffi-
     cult to bring the entire "panel" together in the
     same physical location.  It is also a very effective
     technique for expert forecasting and is often used
     to develop consensus on forecasting future popula-
     tion, recreation demands or probable environmental

3-   Workshops.  This is often the preferred meeting for-
     mat when a group needs to interact in order to ac-
     complish a specific task.  Examples of tasks to be
     completed are (a) scoping out issues; (b) developing
     alternatives; (c) selecting alternatives; (d) speci-

     fying impacts; and (e) developing a final plan.

     Workshops should be limited to 30, but more people

     can be accommodated if the workshop is structured
     for a sufficient number of small groups.  The ideal

     small group size is six to nine.

     Five important steps in designing a workshop are:

     1.   Decide what the goal of the workshop is and
          carefully define the final product;

     2.   Decide who the participants should be who can
          effectively reach that goal;

     3.   Carefully prepare information which must be
          disseminated to participants in order to insure
          informed participation in the workshop;

     U.   Design the activities to get the desired result.
          Give the participants instructions and specify
          the desired .products;

     5.   Evaluate the workshop.

Some techniques which are useful in  a  workshop format are

specified below:

1)   Brainstorming.  This, is perhaps the simplest of all
     small group techniques, although not necessarily the

     most effective in all situations.  It is very useful
     for identifying problems and solutions, generating
     ideas, and stimulating creativity.  The rules are sim-

     a)   All ideas are acceptable and written down on
          the flip chart.Participants are encouraged
          to be as "far out" as they want to be.

     b)   All-evaluation is suspended and absolutely no
          remarks are allowed, not even giggles or expres'
          sions of incredulity.

     c)   After everyone has generated every idea, each
          idea is discussed in turn.  The group may set

          a time limit if they wish;  or they may decide
          to go quickly through the list and discard those
          which are useless;  or they may decide to take  a
          straw vote on a particular number of ideas de-
          serving further consideration.
2)   Nominal Group Process.  Nominal group process,  unlike

     brainstorming, is highly structured and works on the

     theory that individuals are more thoughtful in  the

     presence of one another, but not necessarily inter-

     acting.  It is designed to confront value-laden or

     conflict-ridden questions and give all group members,

     aggressive and non-aggressive alike, the same opportu-

     nity to participate in discussion.  The following

     procedure applies:

     a)   the discussion leader explains the technique
          and asks each person to introduce her/himself
          to the other;

     b)   the leader then poses a pre-developed, open-
          ended question and instructs participants  to
          write their response on a 3 x 5 card for their
          own use;

     c)   the leader then goes around the group and  asks
          each member to offer one idea to be recorded on
          newsprint.  The process continues until all ideas
          are recorded.  No discussion is permitted;

     d)   discussion is then allowed and should move rap-

     e)   the group then ranks the top seven or eight
          ideas, again working silently on 3 x 5 cards.
          The rank order is recorded and a score for each
          idea is tallied and recorded;

     f)   a final group discussion is held to discuss
          the results.
     The  biggest  problem in using a nominal group process is

     that sometimes  people feel manipulated; frustrated

     because  they need more discussion time; or left out of

     the  final  results because "votes" are taken.  But the

     process  is very useful when discussion has been ex-

      "                      110

     hausted and you want people to stop .repeating them-

     selves, or when you want to force an  efficient pri-

3)   Samoan Circle.  This technique is useful  when it  is
     helpful for a large group (20-50) of  people to inter-
     act as though they were a small group.   It  is a won-
     derful technique to use when emotions are high and
     people need to "vent" in a controlled atmosphere.

     The circle is structured in the following way:
     a)    a small table with  four  to  six chairs  around  it
          is placed in the center  of  the room.   This  is
          the "inner circle";

     b)    concentric circles  of chairs are  placed  around
          the table, one for  each  group participant;

     c)    the only people allowed  to  speak  are  those  sit-
          ting at the table in the middle,  so a  partici-
          pant wanting to make a statement  or engage
          someone else sitting in  the center in  discussion
          must leave his/her  seat  in  the "outer  circle"
          and move to an empty seat in the  center;

     d)    if all  seats at the  center  table  are  filled,  a
          person  wishing to speak  stands behind  someone
          else until that person relinquishes his/her
          chair.   Individuals  may  return to the  center
          as often as they like;

     e)    the circle ends when no  one is left in the
     It  is. possible  to  have  a Samoan Circle which belongs

     completely  to the  participants.  In other words,  they

     "facilitate"  their own  meeting.  Another possibility

     is  to  have  a  trained  facilitator permanently seated

     in  the center to guide  discussion.   The facilitator

     role  is discussed  in  the next  section.




Meeting Arrangements
— Meeting date
— Meeting location
o suitable for expected audience
o directions for finding
o contact person
o security
o janitorial services
o audio capabilities
— Public Notice
— Press Release
— Materials sent to Repositories
— Mailing List readied; Mailing scheduled
Meeting Plan
— Agenda
— Panel members notified
— Court reporter
— Moderator/Hearing Officer Introduction
— Executive Summary prepared
— Information handouts

— 2—

— Registration Cards/pens
— Chalk/eraser
— Charts
— Paper/markers
— Scissors/tape
Overhead projector
— Film projector/screen
— Video equipment
— Sound system
Meeting Day Checks

Room arrangement
Water for presenters
Equipment available/working
Supplies in place
Court Reporter present
Ventilation/lights/noise problems
Rest Room locations
Telephone location

                     —James L. Creighton

                     James  L.  Creighton
 The  Participants  "Own"  the Meeting:

 The  fundamental premise of effective meeting leadership is
 identical  to  that  of  democracy  itself:   all power derives
 from the consent  of  the  governed.   Or put  another way:
 people  accept meeting  leadership  because  it is  in  their
 self-interest.   For anybody  to accomplish  what  they want
 in a meeting, there must be some  structure.   There  needs
 to be some limits set  on topics,  procedures  for recogni-
 tion of  speakers,  rules to ensure  that everyone gets heard,
 etc.  So long as the  leader provides that structure, it is
 in the interest of the  participants  to  cooperate with and
 support  the leader.   Even if one individual wants to chal-
 lenge the  leader,  as long as the  leader has  been seen as
 equitable and reasonable, the rest of  the  group will usu-
 ally protect  the leader.  It is not really the leader they
 are  protecting,  but  their own  self-interest in  having a
 fair  and reasonable structure.  But the minute that struc-
 ture  is  no longer seen _as equitable or  reasonable, then
 the  leader's  power is  diminshed  and is subject  to chal-
 lenge.   If,  for  example,  a meeting is  run  in such a man-
 ner  that participants  believe  the meeting is  solely for
 the  benefit of the agency, and not the participants, it is
 no longer in  their self-interest to accept the meeting for-
mat or respond to  the meeting leader.   If  the issue being
 dealt with  is of  low  intensity,  then  people's  sense of
 propriety  or  respect  for  authority  will  keep  them from
 openly challenging the  meeting leader.  But they will usu-
ally judge the meeting  to have been a failure, and usually
have little motivation  to participate again in the future.
If the participants perceive the consequences of the issue
being discussed to be very severe, however,  then they may
feel obliged  to challenge the meeting  leader.   While this

 does  not happen frequently, there have  been  public meet-
 ings  that have  completely  broken down  in  bitter accusa-
 tions,  screaming,  shouting, etc.

 It  should  be  noted that one guidebook to environmental ac-
 tivism  called Sco-tactics describes  procedures for break-
 ing up  meetings.   Usually  this  consists  of  an emotional
 appeal  to  the crowd that  the agency has  stacked the decks,
 that  the agency  won't  really  respond  to anything the pub-
 lic has to say anyway, and therefore  the  only meaningful
 protest is to walk out of the  meeting  en masse.   If the
 meeting leader has clearly attempted  to be  fair,  if the
 agency  has demonstrated  its willingness to listen  and  be
 responsive where possible,  then  this appeal  will usually
 fall  on deaf  ears.  The  speaker  stomps out  of the. room,
 followed by no one, and is usually seen  slinking back into
 the room at a later date.   But  if participants are indeed
 frustrated because the meeting has been  run solely for the
 agency,  if ground  rules  have  been unfair, or  have  set  up
 barriers to people's  participation,  then  this appeal may
 be  responded  to  enthusiastically.

 The essential  point is that the  effective  meeting leader
 starts  on  the assumption  that the meeting belongs  to the
 participants.   The meeting leader is a servant of the par-
 ticipants, not  the ruler.  The  only  reason  for  having a
 meeting leader is  to provide  a  fair  and reasonable struc-
 ture  so that  everybody's interests  can be served.   Once
 this  attitude is  communicated  to the  participants,  they
 are quite  willing  to  accept reasonable  limits,  and allow
 ample opportunities for the agency to provide  information,

Avoiding Symbols of Power:

Many of the reactions  of  the  public to  agency staff lead-
ing meetings is based  on the "psychological size" which
     "*•• -v -              •'   117 -

 the public bestows on a representative of the  state   gov-
 ernment.   "Psychological  size" is the'tendency to  treat
 someone with awe  or  respect  when  you perceive them  to  be
 important or significant.   This can be someone who  has ac-
 tual power or control  over  you,  or a celebrity such  as  a
 movie star,  football  player or wealthy  individual.    The
 psychological size you possess  as  a meeting leader  differs
 from "control" in that it  doesn't  reflect your actual pow-
 er in  the  situation,   but  rather  a  projection of  impor-
 tance based on people's feelings about the government.

 Because it is a  projection,  it contains  both  people's po-
 sitive and negative  feelings about  the  government.   As  a
 representative of  the    agency you  are  likely to  be per-
 ceived as powerful,  but you  may also  be  perceived as  arbi-
 trary, benevolent,  repressive, or  helpful,  depending  on
 people's experience  of government.   If  people have  not
 had much  exposure to  EPA  they  will usually  react  from
 feelings about the government generally.    People who have
 had more experience  with EPA will have feelings about EPA
 specifically,  usually a mix  of  positive and negative.

 All of us  have  ambivalent  reactions to  someone  who  has
 "psychological size".   Someone  with real  power has  the abi-
 lity to directly reward or  punish.   Someone with psycholo-
 gical  size has the ability  to  give  psychological  rewards
 or punishment based  on approval or  disapproval.   We all
 are somewhat  uncomfortable  with people who hold this kind
 of power over us.   Some people  are  challenged, and will
 excel  or compete for  approval.   Others withdraw and  avoid
 circumstances  where  disapproval might be  possible.  Others
 resist or fight the individual  or  agency that is  seen  as

 The important thing  to remember  as  a meeting leader  is
 that  people's reactions to  you are  not  based  soley  on
'the.ir.?,reactions.  to you  as an  individual,  but  on their reac-
        -- ;•.                 .,  us

tions to you as a representative of  the  agency.   This can
lead  to  surprises,  since you may be acting within  a very
realistic  (and  thus probably  modest)  view of  your power
and.yet have people reacting to you in an exaggerated man-
ner.  In fact, since this is a matter of perception rather
than some sort of verifiable reality,  you  may be reacting
to  them  based on your  perception  of  their  psychological
size  (since they may be  leaders  of  a significant interest
group) at the same time they are reacting to the psycholo-
gical size they perceive you as having.

The effect of psychological size is  to exaggerate the im-
pact  of  your actions.   If  you  evaluate  a  participant's
comment, the  effects  of this  evaluation may  be  far more
significant  than  you  intended or  imagined.   If  you are
somewhat arbitrary,  you may be.  perceived  as  excessively
arbitrary.  If you inadvertently cut someone off, this may
be seen as an important political statement.

Some of the  effects  of  psychological  size  are inevitable
and can only  be  overcome by getting to  know  people on an
individual basis.   When you are known  to  people  as Joe
Smith or Patricia Green, human being, rather than "EPA re-
presentative", then most of the exaggerated reactions stop,
But unless you are leading a meeting where everybody knows
you personally,  you can  count  on psychological size being
an important dynamic.

While some of its  effect cannot  be eliminated, it  is im-
portant that  you  avoid  the.symbols of  power  which rein-
force psychological size.   If  you hold a meeting  with ten
staff people, a lecturn with the EPA symbol  on the front,
flags on both sides, pictures  of previous EPA  projects on
all  walls,   $1,000' worth  of  displays,  microphones,  and
lighting devices; you can count on exaggerated  responses,
both positive and  negative,  to  your  psychological  size.

The general  rule  to follow is to minimize the  symbols  of
governmental power.   A study by the  U.S.  Forest Service,
for example, showed  that  participation in public meetings
increased  dramatically when  they  wore  civilian clothes,
rather than uniforms.  When  things  get emotional,  as they
can in meetings, as^long as  you  are  a "symbol"  to people,
rather than  a  "human being", this gives  permission  to  be
abusive, to challenge, to  question,  to over  react  in ways
that would never  be acceptable in  a person-to-person en-
counter.  By avoiding the  symbols of power,  by  being just
plain Joe or Patricia,  you reduce the  likelihood  of this

Leading The Process Not The Content:

Group dynamics experts point out that  there are two levels
of communication that go on during any meeting.   The first
level of communication is  the  Content  Level.   The  Content
Level consists of ideas,  facts,  information  - the  subject
matter which is being discussed.  The  Process  Level,  the
second level of communication, consists of how people work
together - procedures, ground  rules,  processes.   The rea-
son that the Process Level is  important  is  that it commu-
nicates people's relative  standing,  value or  worth in the
situation.  If the way a meeting is being run affords some
people a greater  opportunity to participate  than  others,
for example,  then the process communicates that these peo-
ple are more important or have more value in the situation,
This is not  always' inappropriate - it may make  sense for
experts on a topic to  be  allowed somewhat more  opportuni-
ty to participate - but it does  communicate  value. If the
process always gives much  more value to the  government  a-
gencies than to the  public,  the agencies are,  in  effect,
communicating to the  public  that they don't  have  much  of
worth and value to contribute.   Worse  yet,  if the process
values some publics over others, e.g.  water users partici-
pate with the agencies, while other groups participate at

 the  end of the  meeting,  then the other,  publics  will be-
 come  resentful and mistrust  the  agencies'  willingness to
 hear  their  point of view.

 When  a  meeting leader participates in  presenting  or dis-
 cussing the content of a meeting,  then  that leader becomes
 viewed  as  a participant,  with a  stake  in the discussion.
 Once  the leader  has a stake  in the discussion, his/her a-
 bility  to create  a process that  is fair to everyone comes
 into  question.  For that reason,  meeting  leaders  are en-
 couraged to concentrate their  efforts on  providing an equi-
 table meeting  process,  and avoid  comments  about  the con-
 tent  which  place them in the  role of an  advocate  or par-
 ticipant.   Since it  is  often necessary  to present back-
 ground  about  the proposed  action,  or  answer  questions
 about EPA's actions, etc., it  is  usually  necessary to have
 at least two staff people present, one  to conduct the meet-
 ing, and the other to present  the  information. Then it can
 be established that the meeting  leader's  sole function is
 to help with  the  process,  i.e.   make sure  everybody gets
 heard,  keep the meeting on track,  encourage participation,

 The term  "facilitator"  is  sometimes  used  to distinquish
 this kind of process-oriented  meeting leadership from more
 authoritarian  leadership.  The meeting  leader  "facilitates"
 discussion and problem-solving, rather  than "directing" or
 "leading" it.  While  it may  communicate this  distinction,
 the term is often confusing  to the public and should pro-
 bably be avoided in discussions with the  public.  The term
 is also often  used  in training  sessions, encounter groups,
 etc.   and  carries connotations that  are not  necessary in
 this context.  But the idea  that  the meeting  leader 'leads
 the "process" of the meeting,  rather than directs the "con-
 tent" is  significant  and  central to  effective  meeting

                 —James  L.  Creighton


Below are some  guidelines  for  behaviors a  meeting  leader
should engage in:

Opening The Meeting:

A meeting leader  can  set the  stage  for the meeting  with
her/her opening comments.  In general, if the meeting  lead-
er is relaxed and  relatively informal, the  audience  will
be more relaxed  and comfortable.   The audience  will  also
feel more comfortable  as they know  what  is expected  of
them and what is going to happen in the meeting.  The  open-
ing comments  establish  this framework.   In general,  the
items which  should be  covered in these comments  include:
     a)   Introduce yourself and very briefly say some-
          thing about yourself.  You want to be a person
          to the audience,  not just an agency represen-

     b)   Introduce others  who will play a role in the
          meeting, but avoid "celebrity" introductions
          that will make some people feel left out or

     c)   Review the purpose for this meeting, and how
          it fits in the context of the public involve-
          ment program.

     d)   Outline the format of the meeting and just
          where and how you want people to participate.

     e)   Outline the roles of anyone assisting you in
          meeting leadership, e.g. the person keeping
          a summary of the  meeting on a flip chart.

     f)   Set up any needed ground rules.  Examples
          of ground rules might be:  time limits, one
          person at-a-time, raise hand to be recognized,
          etc.  One effective technique is.to "propose"
          the ground rules, then ask if these are accep-
          table.  So long as they are reasonable, the
          audience will usually agree to the ground
          rules or suggest  only minor modifications.

     g)   Quickly reiterate how and when the public is

          invited to participate.

Leadership During Discussions:

During periods where the public is making comments or ask-
ing questions the meeting leader's role  is  to  ensure that

everybody feels included and  accepted,  and  encourage par-
ticipation.  The meeting leader  should  avoid  getting into

discussions.or debate  on  the  subject matter of  the  meet-
ing.  Specific behaviors the  meeting leader should engage

in include:

1)   Keep the meeting focused on the topic:

     Point out that the discussion has drifted.  Usually
     the meeting will quickly return to the  topic.

     Re-instate the original topic under discussion.
     "My understanding is that we were discussing..."

2)   Clarify  and accept communications:

     Summarize the contribution of participants.  Sum-
     marize in particular,  the contributions of parti-
     cipants  who have not been actively involved.  "Your
     feeling  is that..."

     Relate one participant's idea to another.  "If I
     understand it correctly,  your idea would add on to
     Mr. Smith's by..."                 ,

     Accept incomplete ideas.   "Could.you develop that
     idea a little more?"

     Point out when a participant's contribution is cut
     off and  invite him to complete it.  "I'm afraid that
     we may have cut Mr. Jones off.  Did you have more
     you wanted to contribute, Mr. Jones?"

3)   Accept feelings as valid data:

     Summarize feelings as well as content.   "You feel
     angry when..."

4)   State a  problem in a constructive way so that the
     meeting  can work on it:

     State the issue in such a way that it doesn't sound
     like any individual or group "caused" the problem.


     Help clarify  the areas of decision-making.  "The
     construction  of the project has been authorized.
     What we hope  to accomplish tonight is how to reduce
     the impacts of construction on the local community."

5)   Suggest a procedure or problem-solving approach:

     Point out when it maybe useful to move on to the
     next problems.  "I'm wondering if we're ready to
     move on to..."

6)   Summarize and clarify direction:

     Summarize your understanding of what the meeting
     has accomplished and indicate what the next steps
     will be.
In addition to the behaviors listed above (which an effec-

tive meeting  leader  will  employ),  there  are  also certain

behaviors  which  the meeting .leader  should  avoid because

they will  make  his role impractical.   The  meeting leader

will not be  effective, if he does not  remain  neutral,  be-

comes a major participant  in  the content, manipulates the

group through the use of his role or uses his role to as-

sert his own ideas.

Specifically, the meeting leader should avoid:

1)   Judging or criticizing the ideals or values of

2)   Projecting his own ideas and using his role to
     argue them.  If you want to add your own ideas,
     make some clear identification that  you are not
     making the comments as meeting leader '-  "I'd like
     to take my meeting leader  hat off for a minute and
     comment."  If you get  involved, though, it would
     be better to ask someone else to assume the meeting
     leader role so that you are free to  participate.

3)   Making procedural decisions for the  meeting without
     consulting participants.

4)   Lengthy comments.


Closing The Meeting

At  the end  of  the  meeting,  the  meeting leader  should
clearly state: a) how the public comment will be used, and
b) what will  happen next in the  decision-making process.
This  gives  the public  a sense of confidence  that  their
participation  has  meant something,  and  maintains  visi-
bility in the decision-making process.

The Recorder Role

The meeting leader  may  often be assisted  by  a "Recorder"
who keeps a summary of  the meeting :on a  flip chart  where
all participants  can see  it.  . In small  meetings  (10-15
people) the meeting  leader may also act  as  the Recorder.
In  large  meetings  (100+)  the  flip chart  may  prove  im-
practical since so  few  can see it,  and  it may  be  neces-
sary to use an overhead  projector,  or  abandon the efforts
to keep a visual record.

The visual record can be useful even when there is a court
reporter keeping  a  verbatim transcript.   Transcripts are
very  rarely seen  by  the public  (their  cost  is prohibi-
tive),  so  they  do  not 'serve  the  same  purpose  as  the
visual record.

The purposes of the visual record are:
1)   It "accepts" everyone's contributions by recording
2)   It keeps the contributions very visible and helps
     people keep track of what has or hasn't been
3)   It serves as visibly agreed-upon record of the
In order  that the visual  record be  mutually agreed-upon
there are two  ground rules  that need to  be  agreed upon.
They are:

 1)   The Recorder must make every effort to avoid editing
     or editorializing in the summary in ways that change
     the meaning or bias the summary.

2)   Any individual who doesn't believe the summary ac-
     curately reflects his/her comments is free to have
     the summary of their comments changed to their
Who Should be the Meeting Leader

Traditionally large  meetings have  been  conducted  by  Di-

rectors  or  other high-ranking officials.   This  is based

on  the  public's  need  to  know   that  they  are  "getting

through  to  the  top."    Also  "high-ranking  officials,"

like  everybody   else,   like  the  recognition  that  comes

with  meeting leadership.    But   havir^  high-ranking  of-

ficials  conduct meetings  is not  always  the  wisest  de-

cision.  Some of the other  factors which should  be con-

sidered are:
1)   .The number of public involvement meetings has been
     increasing steadily.  Establishing the precedent
     that every meeting must be conducted by a high-
     ranking official may put an undue stress on staff

2)   Participants may react more to psychological size
     of a high-ranking official than they would to some-
     one selected solely for their meeting leadership

3)   Directors, or others in power, may react with pro-
     nouncements or make commitments under pressure
     as a meeting leader which would be best made after
     more reasoned consideration.

4)   The meeting leader should stay out of content dis-
     cussions, which may be difficult for high-ranking

5)   Individuals who receive specialized training in
     leading public meetings may be able to lead meetings
     as well or better than individuals with higher or-
     ganizational standing.

In many cases Directors, or other officials, may have ac-


quired excellent meeting leadership skills through train-
ing or experience.  As a result, the combination of "get-
ting through to the top" plus skills may be unbeatable.
An alternative is to have the Director open the meeting,
explain that he/she wants to give full attention to
people's comments, and introduce a meeting leader. This
combines the "getting to the top" effect, while reducing
the risks outlined above.

As public involvement increasingly becomes a way of doing
business in EPA, the likelihood is that the number of pub-
lic meetings may make this an insignificant issue. It may
become totally impractical for the Director or other high-
ranking officials to be involved in any but just a few ex-
tremely important meetings.  As a result, it is essential
that individuals be identified who possess personal char-
actertistics which make them potentially effective meeting

                 —Merle  S. Lefkoff


Many  citizen participation activities revolve around non-
interactive  techniques  for  the delivery  of information.
The use of  slide  shows  and overhead transparencies, making
a  good  speech,  writing press releases  and public service
announcements,  establishing hotlines and newsletters - all
of  these  activities support the  education function which
underlies  good  participatory programming.   Generally, a-
gencies have public information offices  which  have staff
specially  trained  to offer technical  assistance in these
areas.  But it is  useful  to know  the guiding  principles
which insure the effective delivery of information to the

Slide Shows  and Overhead Transparencies.   The single big-
gest  mistake made  by  presenters  of graphic  materials on
a  screen  is making the material too  detailed.   How often
have you sat  in the  back of a  room  totally unable to read
the fine  print  up  on a  screen  -  and  you  had your glasses
on!  Keep the material  on  each  slide or overhead
It should be a summary of your oral  presentation only.

Also, keep the slide there  long  enough for people to make
notes,  unless  you prepare  a handout  which  is a  copy of
your  screen  presentation.   .Handouts of the  material  are
probably a good idea anyway,  since the projector is  like-
ly not to work or the fuse  will  blow.

An important rule  to remember is  to  set  everything up in
advance .  The  wrong  tone is  set when an  audience  has to
wait for the presenter to  fumble around with his/her gad-

Your presentation should be  as creative and varied as pos-
sible.  Mix text with cartoons and line drawings or photo-
graphs.  Use charts and graphs to  illustrate and summarize

data, rather than numerical information.  Pass around maps
and other graphics during the presentation to help involve.
the audience.

Finally, studies suggest that a few days after a presenta-
tion people retain 10% of what they heard in a speech, 35%
from a visual presentation, and 65% from a combined audio-
visual presentation.  You  should  think about the possibi-
lity of  preparing  video tape presentations  whenever pos-
sible.  The technology is becoming less expensive and more
accessible  all  the time.   A very  useful  application  of
video tape presentations is showing a  site  for some acti-
vity, when it is not possible to  arrange  a  site visit for
the audience.

Making a Good Speech.  The  oldest and  best  advice govern-
ing the  delivery  of  a good speech  is  (a)  tell  them what
you're going to  say;  (b) say it;  (3)  tell  them  what you
said.  Below are additional tips  for good public speaking.
1)   Plan your speech carefully.  Work from an outline.
     Write out the whole speech in order to learn and
     refine your ideas.  Audiences know when you're un-
2}   Try not to read the speech.  Nothing is more deadly.
3)   Establish direct eye contact with members of the
     audience around the room.
4)   Don't talk down to your audience,
5)   Sound confident and knowledgeable, and punctuate your
     speech with thought-provoking statements.
Working With the  Media.   Your  public affairs  staff are
your specialists,  but  you  will  have  some  opportunity for
direct contact with  the press,  and the  following is some
general guidance.

Above all, be credible.  Don't be dishonest or  evasive.

If you can't tell "the  whole  story,  you're probably better
off not giving a story at all.  Press people are sensitive
professionals  and  can spot  trouble  immediately.   Always
return press inquiries  promptly,  and if  you're  not ready
with a story, or you don't know all  the  details, tell the
reporter  when  you'll be  ready,  or  refer him/her  to the
appropriate person.

You might be asked to give another staff person some back-
ground information for a press release.  Make sure all the
important details  are mentioned  in  the  first  paragraph,
the lesser  details  in the next paragraphs, and  so forth.
Editors cut stories from the bottom up.

Press  conferences  are  necessary  only when  a  really big
story  is  breaking,  and then  it  is  important  to have  a
"name" figure  associated with the  story present  at the
conference.   The press will  want written  background in-
formation or  a press  release  available  before  the press

Set up a  special  table for  the press at  public meetings.
Reporters like  this,  and. it  helps  you  identify  the re-
porters who are  present.'  It  also  helps if  you have es-
tablished a personal  relationship  with  both newspaper re-
porters and television and radio reporters beforehand.

If you desire  television coverage  at an  event,  you will
have to make a  personal call to the  news  director at the
station.   It is even better if you visit the news director
in  person,  and  even  more  impressive  if  you  bring the
chairperson  of  your  advisory  committee  or  an  involved
citizen leader  with you  as  well.   Always  leave  printed
background material behind.                          v

HOT-LINES.  Establishing  a  "hot-line" enables the general
public to call one telephone number at the agency and^ get

a quick response to a  request  for  information.   The "hot-
line" should be a toll-free number.

The hot-line can be manned by  a  single staff person well-
acquainted with the issue; can be hooked up to a recording
device with, a recorded message about the issue or upcoming
events, but must include  the name  and  telephone number of
a real, live staff person to call for  further information;
or be hooked up  to  a  recorder  which asks  the  caller  for
his/her input about the issue.  This last should be follow-
ed by a personal call from a staff person fairly soon.

Newsletters.  Newsletters are a relatively inexpensive me-
thod for  insuring a  continuing and timely  flow  of infor-
mation to the public.  They should never be used as an "ad-
vertisement" for  the  agency,  but  rather  should  seek to
establish credibility for a specific citizen participation

Newsletters can be  as imaginative  as  you  are.   But some
things are important to remember when  preparing a newslet-
1)   Make sure all technical language is translated for
     public consumption.  A good newsletter is jargon-
2}   Use photographs, cartoons, and line drawings liber-
     ally.  You will need professional assistance for lay-
     out, but it is important that the newsletter not only
     be readable, but interesting and easy to look at.
3)   Provide some space in the newsletter for readers to
     fill in a request for information form which can be
     easily mailed back to you.
4)   Publish a calendar of upcoming events-with each
5)   Number and date all newsletters.
6)   Distribute the newsletter to other media representa-


          —William  D. Coplin
          —Michael  O'Leary

            Syracuse University


 This  "political  accounting"  system  was  devised  by  Bill
 Coplin  and Michael O'Leary,  two  men who are  a cross  be-
'tween  a vaudeville act and a couple  of Political  Science
 professors at Syracuse  University.  Named after the  infa-
 mous  Machievelli, one of the applications  of  this  simple
 technique  is  to gain  a  better understanding of some  poli-
 tical activity you  are  observing  - to figure out why  poli-
 tical actors  act  the  way  they do  and why some succeed  and
 some fail.

 The mechanics of  the PRINCE analysis include  the  follow-


 ISSUE POSITION.   How  each actor  feels about the issue-out
 come under study.  It  ranges from +-3 for strong  support,
 through  0  for  neutrality, to -3 for.strong  opposition.

 POWER-.   How much  usable  Capability  each  actor has to  af-
 fect the outcome.   It ranges from  0  for no  power to  3  for
 maximum  power.    ...

 SALIENCE.   How .important is  the   issue to  the actor.  How
 much of the actor's' agenda  is  taken  up  with  this  issue.
 It ranges  from 0  for no  importance  to 3  for  maximum  im-

Some Steps  To  Keep  In Mind

 1)   Be sure  the  issue  you are dealing  with  is very speci-
 fically defined and all members  of the group  fully under-
stand the definition.   Remember that  the  issue must be de-
fined in terms of an observable outcome  that  some  people
will want to have happen  and others  will  want  to prevent.

 It may  turn out that  in  trying to define, an issue-outcome
 you will discover that you are actually talking of several
 different possible outcomes.   If  this  happens,  try to get
 agreement  to  analyze one  of  the  issues  and  later  cover
 others  if there is time.  Members may submit minority
 PRINCE  reports if they wish.

 2)   After formulating an agreed-upon statement of the is-
 sue engaged in general group  discussion  to  develop a pre-
 liminary partial listing of the relevant  actors.   At this
 point keep the list of actors  small, probably.no more than.
 ten should be included.  Make  sure  that  all group members
 understand clearly who all of  the actors are - they should
 be identified as clearly and specifically as the issues.

 3)   After the preliminary list of  actors has  been agreed
 upon, assign  an actor to each member of  the group.   (Two
 members can  deal  with one  actor  or  one  member  may deal
 with two actors,  depending upon the group  size.)   Take a
 few minutes while each group member works independently to
 estimate the  actor's  issue position,  power, and  salience
 on the  issue.

 4)   'After this has  been done, have the  group  member re-
 sponsible give his or her estimates for the issue position,
 power,  and  salience  of  the  first  listed actor.   Follow
 this with  general discussion  to  develop group  consensus
 on the  estimates  for  that  actor.    Follow the  same proce-
 dur'e for each actor.'

 5)   When  the charts have been  filled  in, complete the
 issue-outcome calculations.  Multiply issue position times
 power times salience  for  each actor.  Add  the  resulting
numbers, being careful to  include  the positive  and  nega-
 tive numbers correctly.

6)   If the resulting number is a large positive number


(above +5) the prediction is that your  issue  is  likely to
occur; if the number is a large negative number (below -5)
the issue  is very unlikely  to occur;   if the number  is
close to zero, the prospect for the issue is fifty-fifty.

7)   If you feel that the number you  have  achieved  is un-
reasonable (either too positive or  too  negative),  go over
the charts again to see if you would revise your estimates.
You should also consider whether you  have  left  out  one or
two actors whose scores would make substantial differences
in the predicted outcome.

This form is to be used when an individual or  group wishes
to acquire a quick understanding of a single political  is-
sue.  Prior to the implementation  of strategies developed
under the PRINCE political  accounting system,  we suggest
the longer analysis be performed.

     (State in terms of a desired political outcome)
                 ^V. Ar^^r-U
                                                 by  actor
Actors   position   x
                                x  -V 3
                       .  .
                          Total for all actors=

            —Robert L.  Burke
              EPA Public Affairs

      This case study involves state and local conflicts that occur
when a pollution control issue is perceived as increasing risks
to public health or community welfare.  Although the issue in
this case involves the location of a new hazardous waste treat-
ment facility in a small town, the general health and community
impacts are common to many other EPA programs.

     We would like you to employ the skills and suggestions that
have been discussed in this training session to address the
issues and questions that appear on the last page of the case
study.   They involve initiatives to understand and communicate
the benefits and risks involved, reduce community conflicts, and
maintain EPA's credibility in the process.

     Three teams will be established apportioned equally from those
attending this training session.  This will give those involved
a chance to collectively draw on the skills developed during the
training program*

              THE   SEBASTIAN   CASE

       The Town of Sebastian is located somewhere in the  United
   States.  The town's population has doubled in recent years
   from about 3,500 in 1970 to slightly over 7,000 by the end of

       Sebastian has a town form of  government.    There is a  five
   member town council elected on an at-large basis every two years.
   Four of the members have held office for  over 15 years. None
   has ever faced serious opposition in past elections.

        As the population of the town mushroomed during the 1970's
   and early 1980*s, three resident  groups evolved with different
   philosophies about the future economic and development needs
   of  Sebastian.
       Older  Sebastianites!    These  residents  comprise  about  52  per-
   cent of  the voters  in  Sebastian. Some  trace  their  roots  back  to
   the 17th century when  the  town's economy  was agrarian.    Other
   "old-timers"  are descendents of immigrants who  settled  in
   Sebastian because of  its proximity to  blue-collar  jobs  in
   a  nearby textile and  industrial city.   Most  long-term residents
   believe  that  the town  must 'attract industry  and jobs
   to maintain future  viability.  This belief is fueled  by  drastic
   declines in farming, small business, and  blue-collar  jobs.
   Concern  also  exists about  residential  property  taxes  which  have
   doubled  in  the past decade.
       The Newcomers;   The newcomers began  arriving  in  the  early
  1970's.   Most are young to  early middle-aged  families with
,., small children.   'They are professionals employed  in high-tech
V -industries located within commuting distance following the
 ' 'completion of two interstate highways.  They comprise  48 per-
  cent of the town's voters.    The newcomers were drawn to
  Sebastian's semi-rural environment with its clean air  and
  water.  Drinking water supplies come  from  a large underground
  aquifer which feeds into small streams and ultimately  into a
  large saltwater bay used by  town residents for  recreational
  activities.  The nearest surface fresh water source is over
  forty miles away.


     The newcomers  tend  to interact  within  neighborhood groupings
 in six relatively  affluent subdivisions. None  has  run for  town
 office and they seldom  attend  meetings  of  the  Town Council.   Their
 major concern is that development within the town  is getting  out
 of hand.


      By the late 1970's,  the problem  of safe disposal of muni-
 cipal and  hazardous wastes was becoming highly visible.  State
 legislation was introduced that would give the state full  power
 to site and permit treatment,  storage,  and disposal facilities in
 any city or town where  it could be  done without major environmental
 or health  impacts.  Support for the proposed legislation developed
 as evidence of  illegal  and illicit  dumps emerged in the state.
 Major environmental groups supported  the siting and permitting
 legislation as  did industry lobbyists,  organized labor, and public
 interest groups.   The Governor threw  his full  weight behind the

     In  Sebastian,  the proposed legislation became  an issue only
 among some of the  town's  newcomers  who  had a high  conscious-
 ness  about environmental  issues. A  few  lobbied their state represen-
 tative  in  support  of the  legislation.   Despite strong statewide sup-
 port,  the  legislation repeatedly became bottled up in a house rules
 committee  charged  with  scheduling legislation  for  floor action.
 On  three occasions, the chairman of the committee  was able to muster
 the one-third vote  needed to prevent  the legislation from  coming to
 the floor.  Like many other representatives from rural areas, he
 felt  strongly that  the  siting  authority would  give the state  too
much  control over  local interests and concerns.


      Despite this  setback,  the state  environmental agency  began
 to  investigate  areas that might be  willing to  receive facilities
without the siting  legislation.  Three rural towns were identi-
 fied  as initial  sites of  a proposed statewide  network of hazardous
waste treatment, storage,  and  disposal facilities.   The most
favorable area was  in the  Town of Sebastian.   On  paper, it looked
so promising that state officials dubbed it "The Goldmine."


Sebastian had several advantages as a site.
(1)   There were miles of undeveloped non-agricultural
      land around the proposed site area.  No residents
      were located near the site and none would be
      displaced for it.
(2)  The soil and rock formations and other geological
     features of the area were generally favorable.
     Most important, the water tables lay deep beneath
     the earth's surface. The threat of groundwater
     contamination seemed small.
(3)  The completion of the two interstate highway systems
     meant that there would be easy access for truck
     transport hauling the wastes.
(4)  Some community elements had actively lobbied for
     the state siting legislation.  There seemed to be
     an awareness about the need for such facilities.
(5)  The area in which Sebastian was located was cer-
     tain to achieve federal air quality standards for
     all major air pollutants by the end of 1982. The
     air quality considerations that would govern a
     "non-attainment" area in terms of development and
     emissions would not apply here to either trans-
     portation or stationary sources of pollution.
(6)   By coincidence,  Speedy Waste, a large private con-
     tractor specializing in hazardous waste treatment, had
     also identified Sebastian as a potential site area.

     The State  Environmental  Agency  (SEA)  wanted  to move  quickly
 on the matter.    The Director of  Local  Government Relations  was
 aware  of the  importance  of securing  support  within Sebastian
 for the site.   A recent  state economic  development planning  re-
 port suggested  that  town officials would  likely  support  a  facility
 because of  what it could mean for jobs  and an  expanded tax base.
 The official also knew that  the Town Council President in  Sebas-
 tian seemed to  have  considerable  influence within the community.
 He decided  to contact him personally and  explain the matter  and
 the benefits to the  community.
     The Council President  liked what he heard but  recalling  a
recent explosion of  chemicals  in a neighboring state  demanded
assurances  that the  facility "wouldn't blow  up." The  state official
convinced him over the  next several  days that there was  almost
no chance of that happening. The President of the Council subse-
quently arranged for the  state official to brief the  full Town
Council two weeks later.

     The Sebastian Sentinel was published every Friday and
usually included a brief  and approving report on the  previous
meeting of  the Town  Council.  The paper's editor, owner  and
publisher was the Council President's sister.  She  had never
seen the need to include  an agenda of upcoming meetings, only
what had been decided at  previous ones. So when the state offi-
cial came to Sebastian  to brief the  town council, only a few  people
knew he was coming.   Even the other  council  members had  only  a
vague idea  of what it was all about.
     The state official described  in detail the benefits of
the proposed plant, and its safety features.   It would provide
about 200 temporary construction jobs and 50 or so permanent
positions. Some of the details seemed vague to the other
council members.  Two of them expressed concerns about the
kinds of wastes that would be treated at the facility, and
where they would come from.  But two of the other members
took their cues from the Council President who was nodding agree-
ment to everything the state official was saying.


    After the briefing, the Council discussed the proposal and
the Council President pushed for an immediate vote.  The facility
was approved by a 3-1 vote.   One member abstained.   The majority
felt certain that citizens would support the proposal.   The
state also led them to believe that delay could prompt the state
to consider another location.   When they were told of the Council's
approval, Speedy Waste submitted its permit application for the
facility to EPA.

    The Sebastian Sentinel editorialized in support of the facility.
There was little immediate reaction from long-term residents but
The newcomers reacted negatively.  The shock was not so much at
the Town Council's vote as at the state's intention to site a
facility in Sebastian.

     At the next meeting of the Town Council, emotions ran high
among the large crowd that attended.  Opponents and council members
exchanged sharply different points of view and charges. Finally,
the meeting adjourned with the differences unsettled.  During the
next eight months, the positions solidified.


     	 Members were divided in their support, but the majority
         held firm in support of the facility.

     	 Proponents drew heavily on the state's position regarding
         the suitability of Sebastian and relative safety of the

     	 They blasted the opposition for selfishness on the issues
         of concern to many of the long-term residents.  These
         views are echoed in the Sentinel.
     	 The Agency receives a permit application from Speedy

     	 A subsequent review by EPA indicates that the
         application was fully completed by Speedy Waste.

     	 The application is released for public comment.

     	 Objections to the application surface and the Regional
         Administrator calls for a public hearing.

   -Stressed the need for a voluntary agreement on a facility
    in Sebastian because of growing waste management problems
    statewide and the absence of siting authority.

   -Worked closely with town officials to hold town resi-
    dents in line behind the project.

   -Felt they had to hold on in Sebastian to prevent a
    precendent that could adversely affect their plans
    for a statewide network of facilities.

   -Held a major press conference releasing a study which
    concluded that environmental damage or health risks
    from the facility are extremely small over a 15-
    year period.
   -Raised questions concerning health and safety precautions
    at the site.

   -Demanded more information on the impacts of the proposed
    facility especially concerning the possibility of ground-
    water contamination.

   -Got heavy coverage in statewide TVr radio and newspapers
    denouncing town officials and the state for their insen-
    sitivity, particularly to the potential long-range health
    effects on the town's children. Received editorial sup-
    port from several of the most influential newspapers,
    television and radio stations in the state.
   -Organized a petition drive against the facility which
    surprisingly secures signatures from 44 percent of the
    households in the town.   Opposition begins outreach to
    areas where long-term residents live.  Some begin to
    have concerns about possible health risks and adverse
    community impacts of the project.

   -Opposition leadership raises funds to hire a groundwater
    expert to do a study on  the long-range impacts of the
    facility on the town's drinking water supply.


 	Embarked on several outreach activities within the com-
    munity following submission of permit application to EPA.

 	Got feature stories in area newspapers stressing the
    benefits of the facility in terms of jobs and an im-
    proved tax base.
 	Met with town officials periodically to sustain their
    support for the facility in the face of growing opposi-
    tion within the town.


     You have been assigned as the EPA hearing officer for the
public hearing on the Speedy Waste Permit application.  The
hearing is scheduled in 60 days.  Assume that you have received
a briefing on the situation from the information on the previous
pages.  Employ the Prince Analysis System to assess the charac-
teristics and strenghts of the various groups involved in the
     Then consider the following questions:
     1.   What strategies could you employ for handling and
          communicating the risk of groundwater contamination and
          other risk issues posed by the proposed facility?

     2.   What are the various options that could be developed
          for resolving the conflicts before the public hearing?
              	From the skills training.

              	From areas where there are common interests
                 or agreement.

              	From a possible desire by some of the
                 actors to change or modify their position.


         —Frank Corrado


 1.   You have just shown up in  a  "moon  suit"  and are getting
 out  of  a government  van at a children's playground in down-
 town Boston.

 2.   A group of  citizens has gathered outside your office and
 is demanding to see  you to protest EPA's decision to approve
 a hazardous waste site  in  their  community.

 3.   Mr.  Mayor,  the major bridge  connecting this community to
 the  outside world has just collapsed,  sending two autos and
 a school bus to the  bottom*  No  survivors have been found.

 4.   Your best employee  has just  been arrested for selling
 defense  secrets to foreign agents.

 5.   The  Office  of Management and Budget has  publicly taken
 issue with  your decision to require scrubbers on power
 plants  to cut down on acid rain.

 6.   Mr.  Regional  Administrator,  the meeting  with your state
 administrators,  you  know,  the ones who are unhappy about the
 cutbacks  in  program  grants, is about to begin in your con-
 ference  room.

 7.   You  are  announcing  to  your staff that you are going to
 end  flex  time in  your division.

 8.   The  GAO  has  issued  a report  critical of"  your program,
 criticizing  the overuse of  outside consultants.

 9.   The  Governor  has just  issued a statement criticizing
 the  EPA  regional  office for not  responding quickly enough
 to a call for help during  a major oil spill.

 10.  One of your employees  was just arrested  for selling
 cocaine  in the  regional office.  The FBI says that he has
 been a dealer in  the drug  and has been selling coke in the
 office for the  last  two years.

 11.   A scientific researcher for a public interest group
has  charged  that  EPA let residents of Clearview return to
their homes following a train derailment and release of
acetyl chloride before  the  area was safe.


 12.   Your new intergovernmental  affairs director, a schedule
 C appointee,  is  being  investigated by the district attorney
 for  involvement  in  a mail  fraud  scheme, according to a
 report  in this afternoon's newspaper.

 13.   The  governor has  demanded that you fire your public
 affairs director because of a press report stating that the
 public  affairs director had told a public meeting in Bur-
 lington,  Vt.  that the  state was not capable of managing
 federally delegated environmental programs.

 14.   TWO  of your best  on-scene coordinators are hospitalized
 in serious condition after visiting the scene of a newly-
 discovered hazardous waste dump.  There are rumors that you
 ordered them  to  the scene against advice that the area was
 "too  hot."

 15.   Local environmentalist are charging that EPA is not
 adequately monitoring  state enforcement of the water permit

 16.   You  are  announcing sanctions against the State because
 of EPA's  finding that  the State has not made a good faith
 effort to deal with the auto emissions problem.

 17.  A draft  report prepared by your staff citing that
 unsafe drinking  water  conditions may exist in 50 New Hamp-
 shire communities has  been leaked to the press.

 18.   It has been alleged that your enforcement division
 sought civil  instead of criminal penalties against a mid-
 night dumper  because of his good political connections.

 19.  The  employees  union has charged that you have failed
 to name any women to high positions in your division, and
claims that you have made disparaging comments about women

20.  The  grapevine  has it that you are abusing your travel
and you have called a meeting of your staff to dispute the

           —Frank Corrado


 !•   Introduction
      One  of  the most  important means of communicating with the
 public  in a  community  is via the news media.  As many of you
 know, this is  not  always an easy or enjoyable experience.
     Too  often  that communication takes place during a difficult
 period, when community concerns about PA actions and their
 impact on health or the environment are strong.  It can be a
 "pressure cooker"  situation, and you may find yourself in a
 defensive situation with many elements in the community, includ-
 ing  the news media.
     It is important then, that you have a positive strategy for
 dealing with the news media.
     First,  the media  are a major channel for you in communicat-
 ing with  the community.  Second, a positive communications
 strategy  will help you communicate your message more clearly.
 If the media trusts what you say, you will be able to communi-
 cate more directly.  There will be less chance that the media
will filter or distort what you say.
     Issues  that we will cover in this presentation include:
          (!)   Basic communication techniques
          (2)   The principles of crisis communications
          (3)   Understanding the media's perspective
          (4)   Tips for conducting media interviews

 II.   Basic Communications  Techniques
      Techniques  for  communicating with the press can include:
          (1)   Formal Press Conferences - all media are called.
 A statement is prepared  announcing a major action. A news
 release  is prepared.  Graphics  are prepared.  The formal state-
 ment  should run  less  than  a minute.  Questions are answered.
 Running  time is  usually  about an half hour.  This technique
 should be  used sparingly and only for major announcements that
 affect the entire community.  Everything is on the record.
         (2)  Informal Briefings - for some or all the media.
 Generally  informal,  and  normally not for the purpose of making
 an announcement, but  rather clarifying a policy or providing
 technical  information.   Should  be on-the-record.
         (3)  Media Interviews  - One-on-one interviews with a
 radio, TV  station or  newspaper.  Should be on-the-record.
 Usually initiated by  the media.  Be careful not to play favor-
 ites  by giving information to one interviewer over others.
         (4)  News Releases - Written announcements of Agency
 actions released to media.  Must contain name and phone number
of person who can answer questions.
         (5)  Media Tours - Formally conducted tours by EPA
officials to describe activities that are site specific.  Often
conducted jointly with other local government agencies.
     Other points to remember:
         (1)  Touch base with enforcement or general counsel
if enforcement activities are involved to set groundrules on

 what information,  if any must be  held  confidential  and  for what

 periods of  time.

          (2)   Determine key spokespersons.   Decide  who  will

 speak regarding policy/technical  issues.

          (3)   Inform key community  leaders and  local officials

 just before any announcements to  the media about  sensitive test

 results,  study findings or  other  actions.  DON'T  LET THEM LEARN


 III.   Principles of  Crisis  Communication

      Much of EPA's communication  with  the media can probably be

 categorized as "crisis  communications."  Our experiences in

 many  communities take place during  periods of turmoil and great

 public  concern over  the health impacts of hazardous pollutants

 on the  community.

     There  are a number of  important rules to follow in crisis

 communication, but the  cardinal one is, TELL IT ALL AND TELL IT

 PAST.   Get  the information  out quickly and all  at once.

     Getting out information quickly stops rumors and helps

 calms nerves.  Keep  a continuing  flow of information.   It indi-

 cates that while there  are  problems, someone is active, trying

 to get  a  handle on them.

     Dealing with  rumors  is  an important aspect of  crisis

management.   Rumors,  whether they are true or false, should be

 answered  immediately with the truth.  A "no  comment" does

nothing but  fuel rumors.

      Here are some other major rules of crisis  communications:
          (1)   Be  sure  that  all sources  speak  from  the  same
 platform about a  situation  at a specific time.   It is  best  to
 have  only one spokesperson  who can  call on others  for  help  as
 the need arises.
          (2)   Make everything possible  public.   Cover  all the
 bases  and all the  important subjects  as long  as  security and
 confidentiality are not  breached.
          (3)   Update the information  regularly.  When  the situ-
 ation  is  fluid, frequent updates of  information  are  important.
 In  a  crisis situation  there are few situations where there  can
 be  too much public contact.   Frequent accounting to  the commun-
 ity helps builds  trust and  confidence.   Lapses  in  the  flow  of
 information stimulate  speculation and increase anxiety.
          (4)   Cooperation is  paramount.   Individuals who brief
 the news  media must  have  direct access  to informed sources  of
 information.  Technical  liaison people  should be designated to
 inform briefers and  serve as  a  resource  of the news  media.
          (5)   Stay on  the record.  Don't go off  the  record  with
 reporters.  There  are  exceptions to this, but the  best rule is
 don't say anything that  you don't want  to see in print.
     Understanding of  the needs of the  media  can help  you in
more effectively getting your point of  view across.
     General principles
          (1)  The News Media  have a special status - the "media1
 is a business.  Their business is reporting the news.  They

 make their money from the advertising  that  is  folded  in with
 the  news.   At  the same time,  the media are  a constitutionally
 protected  (First Amendment)  institution  that has a  tradition
 of covering government issues.
          (2)   Be customer oriented - Being  sensitive  to the
 needs of reporters.   Treat them as people who  have  a  job to do.
 Understand their needs for information and  deadlines  and above
 all  be  responsive - be quick  to answer their calls  and help-
 ful—it builds good will.
         (3)   Be proactive -  Many times  a reporter  will not
 understand what's going on and will need help.  By  being help-
 ful, you can at  the same  time find an opportunity to  get the
 points  of  view across  that you want.  When  you talk with a
 reporter,  be clear on  what points you want  to  make.
         (4)   TALK IN  ENGLISH - Avoid jargon at all costs.  We
 use  jargon because it  is  precise.  But it confuses  outsiders.
         (5)   Keep track of what you said - if you  are con-
 cerned  about being "set up" or misquoted, have someone else
present with you  during the interview.
         (6)   If  you don't know an answer,  say so.  Then get
back to the reporter with  the answer as soon as possible.
     Rules  forSnail Communities
         (1)   In  small communities, you will have to  go out of
your way to brief and educate reporters on what's going on
because they are/ of necessity, generalists.

          (2)   The local reporter for the. weekly  newspaper, or
 the  single  radio  station can  be  one  of your main channels to
 the  community.
          (3)   Be  proactive  -  suggest ideas  for stories.
          (4)   Be  informal - be available  on a regular basis,
 either in person,  or by phone to keep that  reporter  updated on
 what's going  on.   In a  small  town, news  travels  fast.  You may
 not  be able to beat  the local "grapevine" in telling people
 "what"  is going on.   Your trump  card is your ability to com-
 municate  via  that reporter  "why"  something  is happening.
 V.   Tips  for  Communicating  with  the  Media
 Preparing for the  Interview — There are  some rules  you should
 remember  as you prepare  for a media  interview:
          (1)   Find out  what the  reporter  is interested in - ask
 him  ahead of  time, so you can prepare.
          (2)  Decide what you want to say - think about the
 points you want to make; don't just  wait  for questions.
          (3)  Practice  questions  and answers - a simple one-on-
 one with  a fellow  employee who plays  devil's advocate will help
 you  formulate answers to potentially difficult problems ahead
 of time.
          (4)  Expect  to  be nervous -  we're all not Johnny
 Carson - especially on television.   But look at  the  interviewer,
not  the camera, and'have a clear  idea about what points you want
to make.  Dress neatly.

          (5)   Evaluate what you did.  Look at the newscast or
the paper and  see how the story was played.  Think about how
you can do it  better next time.
         (6)   If the media get the story wrong - the best advice
in most instances — is to forget it.  If it makes you feel bet-
ter, write a letter to the editor.  The most effective rule is
be more careful the next time.
Interview Techniques — Here are some common traps that you may
encounter and some ideas for coping with them:
         (1)  The "set up".   A long preamble precedes a question,
sometimes loaded with misinformation or a "when did you stop
beating your wife" question.
   EXAMPLE   "Considering the low regard that people have for
             the oil industry, how do you,  as a major oil com-
           •  pany chief executive, expect people to believe
             you're not ripping them off?"
   SOLUTION   There are two schools of thought on how to deal
             with this problem.  One is to break in politely
             to challenge the premise.   (By the way, don't nod
             your head when  the question is being asked...it
             makes viewers think you agree with what's being
             said.)   The  second approach is to wait until the
             question is  finished, then go back and knock down
             the preface:  "Yes, it's true that  some people
             don't  think  much of our business,  or business in
             general,  but  in  fact, our  profits  have been flat

               for the last  two years..." or  simply:   "What
               you've  said is  just not true.  Let's look at
               the figures...."
               then launch into some information regarding
               the  good works of the commission.
          (4)   The  empty chair.   In this situation,  the inter-
 viewer quotes  an opponent or person with a  different  point  of
 view who has criticized your view but is not present.
    EXAMPLE    "Mr. Nader has said that your product is a  health
               hazard and should be recalled immediately." or
               Congressman X  says your industry  is notorious for
    SOLUTION    You  can respond simply "I  haven't  seen  those  re-
               marks."  or "I  don't understand in  what  context
               those  remarks  were made."  or  "I can't believe the
               Congressman said  that,  but I  believe  the facts will
               show..."   You  should make  sure not to attack  an
               opponent  who is not present.
          (5)   The broadside.  This is the "ad hominem" argument, ,
 in which you are attacked  directly.
    EXAMPLE    "You're  a polluter,  aren't you?"  (or  a  liar,  or
               racist, or  redliner,  etc.)
   SOLUTION    The best  advice:   deny  it  straight out,  if  it's
            ...  not true; or be candid  if  there's  some  truth  in
               it:  "We  previously  did have  a pollution problem,
               but in the  last two  years  we've licked  it," or
               "Redlining  has, no  place in our loan operations."
         (6)   Let's pretend.  This  technique involves  the inter-
viewer asking a hypothetical question, a "What if..."  question.
            5\. .-::-.            161

   EXAMPLE    "What if gasoline goes up to two dollars a gal-
              lon.  Should the government take over the oil
              companies then?"
   SOLUTION   Politicians are constantly asked these types of
              questions.  The best advice is to demur and move
              to the point you want to make:  "I think such a
              question is pui.c o^eou-u^^^u.  I think our real
              problem is conservation..."
         (7)  Inconsistency.  If you or your organization has
changed opinions or policies over time you might be asked about
that change.
   E5AMPLE    "Your firm issued a press release previously,
              indicating that you would not leave this commun-
              ity and move to Arkansas..." or "You previously
              stated that there were absolutely no health prob-
              lems with your new drug..."
   SOLUTION    You should clearly explain the reasons for the
              change,  whether it was due to a change in policy
              or circumstances.  "Our intentions have always
              been to maintain a plant in this community.  How-
              ever,  the difficult economic conditions nationally
              and the flood of competing imports have forced us
              to consolidate operations..."  or "Our research
              until  recently indicated that our new drug had
              sufficient safeguards..."

          (8)   No Comment.   "No comment"  is not the same as "I
               don't know.   "No comment"  can be stated  a number
               of ways.   If you don't know, you don't know.
    EXAMPLE    "Is it true  your company  is  considering  buying
               our local TV station?"                   '
    SOLUTION    If the answer is "No  comment,"  it can be done
               smoothly:   "Our firm  has  a history of attempt-
               ing to expand into many new  areas.   We look  at
               over five hundred companies  a year for possible
               acquisition.   But it's a major  decision  in every
                     V -' ••$.-* . > < ': . •  c     . . , , .
               case arid  one in^which. .theret must, be consensus
        ' •   .'        ;'£/            '•*-      • '  ' '
               within •the companyi   There has,been; no decision
               at this time about buying  your  local TV  station;1
Summary              -       ,     '    ;

     These pointers  should help you  when you  have  to deal  with
the media.  Remember the TEAM APPROACH  is  important.  You can
get help, and you should' expect it,'from Public Affairs Office
when there are major media events or needs  in your program area.