National Environmental Education Advisory Council Conference call - April 17,2015 Summary Members in attendance: • Kelly Keena (Chair) • Richard Gonzales (Vice- chair) • Caroline Lewis • Kiki Cony • Ken Gembel • Scott Frazier • Victoria Rydberg • Edna Negron Martinez EPA Staff: • Javier Araujo (Designated Federal Officer) Member of the Public: • Jacqueline Sibblies (PE) The meeting was called to order at 1 ;04 pm by the NEEAC Chair (Kelly Keena), Kelly reviewed the agenda and outlined the documents that had been emailed to all members for review, Kelly stated that there would be three items for discussion and voting during the meeting. First the working groups (development), second the public comment period, and third the nomination and selection of a NEEAC spokesperson. During the roll call of the members in attendance, Kelly acknowledged that a member of the public was on the call. Her name is Jacqueline Sibblies and she is a professional engineer, Kelly reported that newest NEEAC member Victoria Rydberg had joined the editing team. In addition, Kelly pointed out that there would be three potential working groups. One to specifically address the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 and how it functions as it pertains to the Office of Environmental Education what programs it supports as well as the budget constraints associated with the office. This working group would review the opportunities available for the council in terms of reauthorizing the act as well as supporting the recommendations and the Office of Environmental Education. Kelly added that two NEEAC members were being requested for this task. The second proposed group would review the specifics of the Office of Environmental Education. Grant Program, and the factual inaccuracies that are currently contained in the NEEAC draft ------- report as it is. In addition this work group would also review that the recommendations regarding the grants program are relevant and meaningful and make sense for the grant program. The third proposed group would review the draft report from the lens of the NEEAC charter. This work group would look at personnel skills, education and training and the extent and quality of programs available to senior Americans. This workgroup would also need two members and would bring back recommendations to the whole NEEAC council. Kelly asked for a motion from the council. NEEAC member Edna Negron Martinez moved that the agenda and development of workgroups proposal be approved. NEEAC member Victoria Rydberg seconded the motion. Kelly asked each NEEAC member present to take up to two minutes of time for discussion. After a roll call vote of each member, the motion to approve the three worlcing groups passed unanimously. The second point of discussion was the public comment period. Kelly indicated that the NEEAC has the option to put the final report draft for public comment. This is typically done for a period of 30 to 60 days. This public comment would happen after the report is in final draft, but before it is delivered to the EPA administrator. In addition Kelly indicated that if comments are received during the public comment period, they would have to be acknowledged. This would have time and budget considerations. Caroline Lewis (NEEAC member) moved that the final report draft be put forth for public comment. Ken Gembel (NEEAC member) moved that the report not be put forth for public comment. Scott Frazier (NEEAC member) seconded Ken's motion. Caroline Lewis qualified her motion that the report not be put forth for public comment. Kelly then did an individual roll call vote. During the roll call vote, someone asked a clarifying question on a part of the motion that was confusing. Kelly asked the NEEAC DFO Javier Araujo to again explain the process of the public comment period. Javier (DFO) reiterated that the public comment period is typically 30 to 60 days, and that the NEEAC is not legally required to make the report available for public comment. In addition Javier reminded the group that the public comment period could produce three questions or comments or 300. Each question or comment would need to be addressed and acknowledged by a NEEAC member. This would have time and cost implications to the group (NEEAC) as well as to the Office of Environmental Education. During the discussion Victoria Rydberg (NEEAC) member pointed out that opening the report to the public comment period would delay the report until August or September. Since the fiscal year starts in October 1, there would be potential for the report to help the EPA administrator make the case for budget requests and resources for the next year. Edna Negron Martinez (NEEAC) member indicated that as part of the collaborative process it made sense to listen to the public and see if there are any gaps in the report. Scott Frazier (NEEAC) member indicated that the time for research had passed and that the motion should move forward. Kelly ICeena (NEEAC chair) restated the motion and called for a second. Ken seconded the motion to not open the report for public comment. A roll call vote was held, Edna Negron Martinez voted ------- against the motion because she favored to make the report available for public comment. Victoria Rydberg (NEEAC) member abstained and the motion passed. The third consideration for the group was the nomination and designation of a spokesperson. Kelly indicated that Emily Selia (OEE Communications) suggested the selection of one or two spokespersons. The designated spokesperson would need to be well versed in the contents of the NEEAC report, able to speak to members of the press, and keep in communication with the NEEAC as well as the EPA Office of Environmental Education. Scott Frazier (NEEAC) member indicated that consideration would need to be given to the idea that if the spokesperson resigned from the NEEAC an alternate should be available. The group discussed and decided that Kelly Keena (NEEAC) chair would be the best choice for designation as the spokesperson. Since the date for the report completion and the necessity for a designated spokesperson is down the road it was suggested that the discussion regarding the spokesperson be tabled for the moment. Kelly moved that the idea of appointing a spokesperson be tabled, Caroline Lewis seconded the motion, and the motion passed. Kelly asked NEEAC members what specific workgroup they wanted to be part of, Kelly also asked the groups to get back to the NEEAC editing team with their revisions by May 6, 2015. Kelly indicated a desire to have a business call on May 4th and possibly another NEEAC federal register teleconference by the end of May. The meeting was adjourned at 1:54pm. ------- NEEAC Meeting April 17,2015 Call in number: (800) 374-0763 Conference ID: 16980311 PST 10:00 am —12:00 pm MST 11:00 am -1:00 pm CST 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Topic | i.ead ,, Welcome and review of agenda Introductions, if necessaiy Kelly 5 Working Groups (<2 minutes each roll call) Vote All 15 Public comment period (<2 minutes each roll call) Vote All 15 NEEAC Spokesperson nominations and selection Discussion, possible vote All 15 Next steps and next meetings Kelly 10 Public comment period Javier 5 Adjourn Kelly 5 ------- |