I tS*5? I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP -5 1984
TO TRAINING PARTICIPANTS
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
situations.
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
//Director
^Office of Public Affairs
-------
COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING
Instructors: Merle Lefkoff and Frank Corrado
8:30 a.m. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF TRAINING
AND INSTRUCTORS
8:40 a.m. "WHY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS CRITICAL"
—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
10:05 a.m. COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
—Active Listening
—Congruent Sending
11:35 a.m. Brown bag working lunch
12:00 p.m. THE REALITIES OF COMMUNICATING
HEALTH EFFECTS
—Developing Credibility
—Responding to Difficult Questions
2:15 p.m. MAKING MEETINGS MORE EFFECTIVE
—Small Group Meetings
—Large Group Meetings
—Effective Meeting Techniques
3:45 p.m. THE SEBASTIAN CASE STUDY
—The Prince Analysis System
5:15 p.m EVALUATION
Jo Cooper
William D.
Ruckelshaus
Frank Corrado
Merle Lefkoff
Merle Lefkoff
Frank Corrado
Merle Lefkoff
Merle Lefkoff
Frank Corrado
-------
INSTRUCTOR BIOGRAPHIES
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-
ington.
-------
"WHY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS CRITICAL"
—William D. Ruckelshaus
-------
WHY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS CRITICAL
—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.
6
-------
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
7
-------
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.
8
-------
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONTACTS
AND EVALUATING COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
--Robert L. Burke
EPA Public Affairs
-------
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONTACTS AND EVALUATING COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
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.
A. PROGRAM AREAS WITH 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
areas.
(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.
10
-------
(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)
B. REGIONAL CHALLENGES
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
programs.
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.
11
-------
C. REGIONAL STRENGTHS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
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.
12
-------
D. BUILDING A COMMUNITY TEAM CONCEPT AROUND REGIONAL
OFFICE RESOURCES AND EXPERIENCES
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.
A TEAM EFFORT INVOLVING SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES WITHIN.
THE REGIONAL OFFICE CAN PROVIDE THE,INFORMATION NEEDED TO
OPERATE IN AND UNDERSTAND COMMUNITY CONDITIONS At)p..-,.••:•. J ' ' L
13
-------
E. STATE STRENGTHS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
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.
14
-------
OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES OP INFORMATIONAL 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 .-
15
-------
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
reflective.
G. PRIVATE SOURCES OP INFORMATION AND SUPPORT
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
communities.
People like being asked for help or non-binding
advice,on an issue.
16
-------
H. MYTHS ABOUT COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
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
include:
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
government.
17
-------
I. LOCAL CONTACTS
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.
18
-------
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.
19
-------
J. EVALUATING LOCAL SOURCES
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
mark.
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.
20
-------
K. SUMMARY
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
credibility.
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
21
-------
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.
K. SOME CONCLUDING IDEAS
(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.
22
-------
HANDBOOK FOR EPA
COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
23
-------
HANDBOOK FOR EPA COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
Prepared By
Office of External Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 1983
24
-------
HANDBOOK FOR EPA COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
I. INTRODUCTION
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.
I I. COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING -WHAT IS IT?
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.
25
-------
' 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.
(1) WHO'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION?
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.
26
-------
(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.
27
-------
(®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.
(2) WHO HAS TO BE NOTIFIED?
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
affected.
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
I
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.
(4,) HOW ARE WE GOING TO NOTIFY THEM? '
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.
29
-------
(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.
(6) WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR TELLING WHOM?
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
30
-------
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.
HI. DOING COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
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
developed.
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,
31
-------
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.
32
-------
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.
33
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPING A
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
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.
•l
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
Mayors
• '
7. Describe background information available on this action.
8. Identify Agency experts on this subject.
9. Comments.
34
-------
HOW TO COMMUNICATE
WELL IN A PUBLIC FORUM
—Frank Corrado
-------
HOW TO COMMUNICATE WELL IN A PUBLIC FORUM
Problems:
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
example).
Problems of "Avoidance":
0 "Pay me now, pay me later"
0 Technical people enjoy doing technical things, not
people stuff
36
-------
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 '•
ii
0 Don't be surprised by questions (Devil's advocate before '
meeting)
37
-------
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?"
38
-------
VALUES IN COMMUNICATION SKILLS
--Synergy
(c) 1976
39
-------
UNDERSTANDING VALUES
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-
vels:
(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-
municating.
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
Happiness.
40
-------
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.
VALUES AND INDIVIDUAL REALITIES
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,
41
-------
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.
POLICIES AMD UNDERLYING VALUES
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
Policy
C
-------
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.
MOST DATA FROM PUBLIC IN FORM OF VALUES
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-
logical".
AGENCIES HAVE OWN VALUE SYSTEM
One reason that much information from the public is viewed
43
-------
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. -
IDENTIFYING VALUES IN DISCUSSIONS
Here is an analysis of the three different levels of commu-
nication in a specific example:
PUBLIC COMMENT: "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLOSE THIS ROAD
TO OFF-ROAD VEHICLES. WE'RE TAXPAYERS
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
44
-------
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
bureaucrats".
(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".
THE IMPORTANCE OF VALUES
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-
cisions.
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
45
-------
specific, documented contribution which can only come from
the organized interests.
46
-------
VALUES AND
BEHAVIOR
Public Consciousness
BEHAVIOR
OR
ACTIONS
BEHAVIOR
POLICIES
(Behavior
determinants -
Shoulds" or "Oughts
ATTITUDES
(Generalized perceptions o
how the world should be)
VALUE PROPS
o
ra
x
•o
CO
3
O
(D
O
2T
C
-s
CO
o
•y
o
o
o>
47
-------
SAMPLE LIST OF VALUES
Comfort
Equality
Excitement
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner harmony
Love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self-respect
Accomplishment
Recognition
Friendship
Wisdom
Peace
Beauty
Ambition
Broadmindedness
Competency
Cheerfulness
Cleanliness
Courage
Forgiveness
Helpfulness
Honesty
Imagination
Independence
Intelligence
Consistency
Rationality
Obedience
Politeness
Self-control
Respectfulness
Restraint
Responsibility
Affection
Self-reliance
Creativity
.Sensitivity
Truthfulness
Openness
Sincerity
Brotherhood
Neatness
Loyalty
Hard work
Contentment
Efficiency
Success
Economy
Safety
Wisdom
Tradition
Property
Law
Free speech
Initiative
Health
Humor
Cooperation
Competition
Integrity
Toughness
Compassion
Justice
Productivity
Nonviolence
Learning
Growth
Choice
Moderation
Winning
48
-------
INTRODUCTION TO ACTIVE LISTENING
—Synergy
(C) 1976
49
-------
INTRODUCTION TO ACTIVE LISTENING
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.
CONTENT/RELATIONSHIP DISTINCTION
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-
tionship.
ACCEPTANCE OF FEELINGS
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-
50
-------
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
them.
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.
ACCEPTANCE vs. AGREEMENT
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."
INDIVIDUAL REALITIES
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
51
-------
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
own.
PRESENTING PROBLEMS
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
52
-------
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.
INEFFECTIVE LISTENING
The basis of much ineffective listening is two-fold: 1.)
Failure to distinguish those times (like the example above)
53
-------
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. .
Example:
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...?"
"When...?"
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.
55
-------
Listener: "Sounds like you're feeling pretty frustrated
with that project." .'•' .
THE EFFECTS OF ACTIVE LISTENING
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.
56
-------
QUESTIONS AS STATEMENTS OF FEELINGS
When your Associate asks you: "Do I have to fill out this
form?", is he asking you for information or telling you his
feeling?
He might be saying:
"Is this the right form?"
or
"Is this the proper procedure to follow?"
or
"I resent spending my time filling out this form."
or
"I hate forms."
or
"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.
57
-------
Example:
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-
58
-------
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-
tion.
59
-------
SAMPLE LIST OF FEELINGS
Concerned
Desperate
Confused
Angry
Frustrated
Discouraged
Annoyed
Belittled
Patronized
Put-down
Understood
Turned off
Pleased
Uncomfortable
Resentful
Misunderstood
On the Spot
Unimportant
Hopeless
Encouraged
Confident
Envious
Dissatisfied
Worried
Affectionate
Enthusiastic
Puzzled
Threatened
Stymied
Hurt
Astonished
Overwhelmed
Surprised
Scared
Terrified
Upset
Uncertain
Important
Guilty
Blamed
Content
Shamed
Defensive
Discounted
Embarrassed
Attached
Considered
Intruded Upon
Unfaired Against
Ignored
Uncomfortable
Anxious
Disturbed
Rejected
In a Bind
Delighted
Infuriated
Ripped-off
Betrayed
Cornered
Joyful
Disappointed
Hopeful
Turned-on
Great
Irritated
Isolated
Left-out
Relieved
Cared For
Proud
Up-tight
Wanted
Intimidated
Hateful
60
-------
INTRODUCTION TO CONGRUENT SENDING
—Synergy
(C) 1976
"61
-------
INTRODUCTION TO CONGRUENT SENDING
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.
Example:
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.
62
-------
Example:
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 . •
Example:
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
63
-------
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. .
AM ALTERNATIVE: CONGRUENT SENDING
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:
CODE
MATCH
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-
64
-------
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.
65
-------
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-
uation.
Example:
"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
CONCEPT:
OWNERSHIP t- SENDING FEELINGS + DESCRIBING, NOT
JUDGING.
66
-------
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
ON HEALTH EFFECTS
—Frank Corrado
67
-------
"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
69
-------
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
responsibilities.
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-
70
-------
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.
71
-------
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
numbers.
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
72
-------
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
trust.
73
-------
- 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
mind?
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
74
-------
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
descriptions.
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.
75
-------
#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
decision.
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.
76
-------
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
risk.
- 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
77
-------
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
monitor.
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
terms,
#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
78
-------
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
79
-------
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-
80
-------
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.
SUMMARY
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.
81
-------
"RISK IN A FREE SOCIETY"
--William D. Ruckelshaus
82
-------
Vital Speeches of the Day
REG u s r AT.on.
VOL. L
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-
tors.
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.
83
-------
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
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
formation.
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-
tics.
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
wise.
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
84
-------
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
risk.
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-
lems.
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.
85
-------
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
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
Tacoma.
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
dispute.
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
86
and ordering sources of uncertainty and for putting them in
perspective.
'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
r
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.
87
-------
IMPROVING PUBLIC NOTICES
—Frank Corrado
-------
IMPROVING NOTICES
PROBLEM:
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
SOLUTIONS:
j 1- Redesign notices
2- Re-write notices
3- Use display ads
4- Use "Public Service Announcements"
89
-------
Regular
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
s
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
RCRA.
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.,
90
-------
2
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.
91
-------
Subject
Date
Location
Tim©
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.
-------
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS
FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
--Frank Corrado
93
-------
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
information.
Standard
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
Modified
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-
ities.
I want to make it clear that we
at EPA have nothing to say about
-------
Standard
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
application.
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.
Modified
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
others.
Before we ask for your com-
ments, Mr. Johnson will pre-
sent the background on Gen-
eral Portland's permit appli-l-
95
-------
Standard
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
audience.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you Tom.
I will now briefly summarize
U.S. EPA's public partici-
pation procedures.
Modified
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.
96
-------
PUNNING MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
—Frank Corrado
97
-------
PLANNING MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
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
.98
-------
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
99
-------
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
calls
100
-------
PLANNING MEETING LOGISTICS
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
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
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
101
-------
style setup (speakers in the front, audience in rows)
could be effective.
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X XX
X XX
X XX
X XX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
If there are fewer than 100 people expected, use a
classroom style (audience in rows with tables for
taking notes).
XX
XX
< X X X XXX X X X X
(XXX XXX X X X X
X X X X
XXX
X X X X
102
-------
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
103
-------
PUBLIC MEETINGS
—Merle S. Lefkoff
104
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVE LARGE GROUP MEETINGS
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.
105
-------
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
ISO!
„ 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
discussion.
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-
106
-------
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-
107
-------
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
impact.
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-
108
-------
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-
ple:
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
109
-------
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-
idly;
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-
oritization.
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
center.
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.
Ill
-------
PUBLIC MEETING CHECKLIST
112
-------
CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING
PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
Status
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
Notification
— 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
113
-------
— 2—
Status
Supplies
— Registration Cards/pens
— Chalk/eraser
— Charts
,•*
— Paper/markers
— Scissors/tape
Equipment
Easel
Overhead projector
— Film projector/screen
— Video equipment
— Sound system
Meeting Day Checks
Room arrangement
Nameplates
Water for presenters
Equipment available/working
Supplies in place
Court Reporter present
Ventilation/lights/noise problems
Rest Room locations
Telephone location
114
-------
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE MEETING LEADERSHIP
—James L. Creighton
115
-------
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE MEETING LEADERSHIP
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
116
-------
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,
etc.
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
powerful.
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.
119
-------
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
occuring.
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
120
-------
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,
etc.
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
leadership.
121
-------
HOW AN EFFECTIVE MEETING LEADER SHOULD ACT
—James L. Creighton
122
-------
HOW AM EFFECTIVE MEETING LEADER SHOULD ACT
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-
tative.
b) Introduce others who will play a role in the
meeting, but avoid "celebrity" introductions
that will make some people feel left out or
unappreciated.
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
123
-------
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.
124
-------
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
others.
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.
125
-------
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
them.
2) It keeps the contributions very visible and helps
people keep track of what has or hasn't been
suggested.
3) It serves as visibly agreed-upon record of the
meeting.
In order that the visual record be mutually agreed-upon
there are two ground rules that need to be agreed upon.
They are:
126
-------
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
satisfaction.
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
time.
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
skills.
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
officials.
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-
127
-------
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
leaders.
128
-------
DELIVERING INFORMATION EFFECTIVELY
—Merle S. Lefkoff
129
-------
DELIVERING INFORMATION EFFECTIVELY
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-
4
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
public.
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-
gets.
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
130
-------
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-
prepared.
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.
131
-------
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
conference.
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
132
-------
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
process.
Newsletters can be as imaginative as you are. But some
things are important to remember when preparing a newslet-
ter.
1) Make sure all technical language is translated for
public consumption. A good newsletter is jargon-
free.
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
newsletter.
5) Number and date all newsletters.
6) Distribute the newsletter to other media representa-
tives.
133
-------
THE PRINCE POLITICAL
ANALYSIS SYSTEM
—William D. Coplin
—Michael O'Leary
Syracuse University
134
-------
USING THE PRINCE POLITICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM
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-
ing:
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES TO BE MADE
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-
portance.
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.
135
-------
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-
t
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
136
-------
(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.
137
-------
MINI-PRINCE ISSUE ANALYSIS FORM
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.
Issue:
(State in terms of a desired political outcome)
•5p^«4vi\x>o^c«^
^V. Ar^^r-U
Total
support
by actor
Issue
Actors position x
Power
Salience
x -V 3
. .
Total for all actors=
138
-------
THE SEBASTIAN CASE STUDY
—Robert L. Burke
EPA Public Affairs
139
-------
INTRODUCTION
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*
140
-------
THE SEBASTIAN CASE
TOWN PROFILE:
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
1983.
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.
141
-------
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.
THE EMERGING ISSUE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT;
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
legislation.
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.
SEBASTIAN SELECTED AS SITE
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."
142
-------
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.
143
-------
SUPPORT FROM THE TOWN GOVERNMENT:
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.
144
-------
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.
TOWN COUNCIL
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
facility.
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.
EPA ROLE
The Agency receives a permit application from Speedy
Waste.
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.
145
-------
THE STATE AGENCY
-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.
THE OPPOSITION
-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.
146
-------
SPEEDY WASTE
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.
147
-------
WORK PROBLEM AND QUESTIONS
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
issue.
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.
148
-------
MEDIA FOR MANAGERS
—Frank Corrado
149
-------
Pre-Assignment
MEDIA FOR MANAGERS - PRESS CONFERENCE TOPICS
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.
150
-------
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
program.
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
employees.
20. The grapevine has it that you are abusing your travel
and you have called a meeting of your staff to dispute the
charge.
151
-------
DEALING WITH THE PRESS
—Frank Corrado
152
-------
COMMUNICATING WITH THE MEDIA
!• 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
153
-------
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
154
-------
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
ABOUT IT FROM THE MEDIA.
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.
155
-------
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
156
-------
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.
157
-------
(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.
158
-------
(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
159
-------
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
price-fixing..."
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..."
162
-------
(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.
163
------- |