2008 deq/mda/dnr leadership academy identifying and ......shared her knowledge and experience, and...

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources

2008 DEQ/MDA/DNR Leadership Academy Identifying and Testing Effective Public Participation Techniques Action Learning Project Team Report

2

2008 DEQ/MDA/DNR LEADERSHIP ACADEMY

IDENTIFYING AND TESTING EFFECTIVE

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES

ACTION LEARNING PROJECT TEAM REPORT

JANUARY 21, 2009

TEAM MEMBERS:

Larry Bean, DEQ Waste and Hazardous Materials Division

Scott Miller, DEQ Air Quality Division

Jim Milne, DEQ Land and Water Management Division

Debbie Smith Ostrander, DEQ Water Bureau

Chuck Thomas, DEQ Water Bureau

Bob Wagner, DEQ Remediation and Redevelopment Division

SPONSORS:

Bryce Feighner, DEQ Air Quality Division

JoAnn Merrick, DEQ, Executive Division

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2008 Leadership Academy Identifying and Testing Effective Public Participation Techniques Action Learning Project Team (afterwards referred to as the team) was charged with evaluating current and potential public participation techniques (PPT) and identifying which techniques may be effective in a variety of applications. The team was also tasked to develop both a matrix tool that will aid staff in determining which techniques are appropriate for various situations, and a process for communicating the techniques and matrix tool use to staff. A number of documents about existing PPT were reviewed. The various techniques discussed in the documents were analyzed and the pros and cons of each were determined. The team gained valuable insights about public participation during a meeting with an expert from Michigan State University, leading directly to a matrix tool, which departmental staff should find extremely useful. The team also gained insight about the many challenges the agencies will encounter to utilizing more effective public participation practices. Public Participation surveys were performed on two levels. Senior managers in each department were asked to respond to six specific questions about what they believed encompassed effective public participation. A selection of staff in the three departments and in other state and federal agencies were surveyed about the effectiveness of their recent public meeting experiences. The survey data was compiled and used by the team to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current public participation processes. The team elected to test some public participation technique enhancements at a “town hall” style public informational meeting held in Detroit by the DEQ Director. The effectiveness of the enhancements was evaluated with responses obtained from a survey form the team handed out at the meeting. Based on the survey responses, some techniques were well received and some techniques needed additional enhancement. A matrix tool the team developed will assist staff in evaluating which PPT should work best in a given public participation setting. Along with the tool, the team prepared a recommended training plan to help staff more effectively utilize the matrix tool. A number of valuable points were learned or developed with this project.

• A key to building support for the agencies is to boost public trust of our agencies. We

must enhance the public participation process to garner the needed increase in public trust.

• Many effective PPT already exist, have been utilized by others, and can be readily used by our agencies.

• How a technique is applied makes a huge difference in its success. A technique enhancing the public experience at one meeting can be detrimental at another meeting if the personnel arranging and leading the meeting apply the technique poorly.

• Since not all techniques are effective in all situations, using the matrix tool will greatly assist staff in deciding which techniques are best utilized in each public participation opportunity.

• Staff in all three agencies must be encouraged to improve public interaction abilities through training opportunities.

4

• Training alone is not sufficient. Selecting and using appropriate PPT is a skill that must be developed through repeated use over time, and refined by applying the lessons learned from prior experiences of the individual and other agency staff.

• Challenges to overcome include public opinions, existing statutory rules, agency resource issues, travel and training budget problems, and staff resistance to change.

In summary, improving the public participation experience is critical for all governmental agencies. The team recommends that the agencies continue soliciting feedback via survey forms from public meeting participants, persuade staff to use the matrix tool, and encourage staff to improve their public interaction skills through available Civil Service and other training opportunities; and then seek out opportunities to apply their knowledge in future public participation forums. By improving PPT, the agencies will gain increased public trust, which in turn will increase public support for our programs. In this climate of tight budgets and dwindling staff resources, enhanced public support is absolutely essential.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who contributed to this project. We would like to thank the senior management of the DEQ, DNR, and MDA for their insightful responses to our survey request. Many thanks to all the individuals in our departments and in the other state and federal agencies who readily provided valuable information via our survey request. We particularly wish to thank the DEQ Director, Steve Chester for graciously allowing us to test specific PPT at his Detroit town hall meeting. Special thanks to our project sponsors, JoAnn Merrick and Bryce Feighner, who provided valuable guidance and assistance as we worked our way through the project.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

INVENTORY OF PPT

Literature Review Senior Management Questionnaire Personal Experiences Academic Expert

PPT SURVEYS

Other Agencies Specific Targeted Public Meetings

TEST OF PPT

Detroit Town Hall Meeting Test Synagro Meeting

MATRIX TOOL OF PPT

STRENGTHS FOR EACH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUE

LEADERSHIP SKILLS GAINED BY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

PROJECT DISCOVERIES AND CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A: PROJECT CHARTER

APPENDIX B: PROJECT WORK PLAN

APPENDIX C: PPT INVENTORY SUMMARY

APPENDIX D: SENIOR MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

APPENDIX E: AGENCY SURVEYS AND SUMMARY

APPENDIX F: SURVEY RESPONSES FOR TARGETED PUBLIC MEETINGS

APPENDIX G: TECHNIQUE TEST SURVEY FORM AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

APPENDIX H: SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL PPT OBSERVATIONS

APPENDIX I: MATRIX

APPENDIX J: STRENGTHS FOR EACH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUE.

APPENDIX K: TRAINING IDEAS AND OPPORTUNITIES

APPENDIX L: HELPFUL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS – RESOURCES

APPENDIX M: PPT TEST RESULTS FROM A LWMD FORMAL HEARING

7

INTRODUCTION Leadership Academy participants are expected to complete an “Action Learning Project”. Brad Pagratis, Larry Bean, Scott Miller, Jim Milne, Debbie Smith Ostrander, Chuck Thomas, and Bob Wagner were assigned to the “Identification and Testing of Effective Public Participation Techniques (PPT)” project team (hereafter called the team). Brad had to subsequently leave the team due to a very demanding new work assignment. The project purpose was to systematically identify, test, and recommend framework(s) for effective public participation in agency activities. The complete team Project Charter and Project Work Plan are included as Appendixes A and B to this report. The project goals were to develop a useful product to improve public participation and develop future leaders by improving competencies, knowledge, and experience. The three project deliverables are an inventory of PPT, a matrix tool of PPT, recommendations for specific situations, and this final report. Project objectives were to:

• Benchmark current and potential PPT, • Develop a matrix of techniques and situations to deploy the techniques, • Test one or more PPT and obtain stakeholder and staff feedback, • Recommend a structure or process for communicating the techniques and tools to

program staff, and • Meet at least one Individual Development Plan (IDP) goal for each team member.

To accomplish the project goals, the team began researching existing PPT by a variety of means, including document reviews, personal experiences, surveys of DEQ, DNR, and MDA staff, and surveys of staff in other agencies. This research uncovered a large variety of PPT being used in multiple scenarios. Often the success of a specific PPT depended upon how and when it was used, and not so much on the technique itself, which leads to the premise that staff may require more and better training on interacting with the public. As the team worked on PPT research, a resource expert was identified at Michigan State University, Professor Maureen McDonough. Dr. McDonough met with the team, graciously shared her knowledge and experience, and provided a very nice PPT matrix framework, which the team modified and enhanced to create a useful PPT matrix tool. The team tested PPT at a town hall meeting in southeast Detroit where the meeting focus was environmental justice issues. The team also tested PPT at a pre-application public information meeting held by the Air Quality Division (AQD), again in the Detroit area. Feedback indicated mixed feelings about the success of the PPT in both situations. This report details the work done by the team to accomplish the stated goals. The project team’s discoveries, conclusions, and recommendations are presented along with a matrix tool that staff can use to identify the optimum PPT to use in a variety of settings. The report appendixes contain survey summaries, PPT summaries, the matrix tool, training opportunities, and useful links to additional information.

8

INVENTORY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES The team inventoried existing and potential PPT from four broad source categories; literature review of PPT, feedback from senior management of the DEQ, DNR, and MDA, personal experiences of team members, and input from a Michigan State University academic expert. Each team member was tasked with identifying existing literature sources about public participation. The resultant list of sources was divided between team members to review and summarize. Team members were also tasked with identifying the positives and negatives for each PPT discussed in the documents they reviewed. The reference bibliography list found in Appendix L includes the list of documents reviewed. Since some documents contained repetitive information about certain PPT, the individual reviews were collated into one large summary report, which is included as Appendix C. The summary report identifies an inventory of PPT, lists the pros and cons of many of the PPT, includes specific methods to provide public notice for public participation, and describes which PPT should be used for specific public input processes. The report also identifies methods to improve the effectiveness of public participation, lists some public hearing strategies, provides a guide on how to better communicate with the public on controversial projects, and includes a checklist of things that should be considered for a public hearing. Included in the summary report are recommendations for staff training options to enhance the public participation experience, a list of positive PPT experiences, and a list of negative PPT experiences. Within its pages the report contains a plethora of valuable information gleaned from hundreds of pages of reference documents, which can be easily utilized to enhance the public participation experience in any scenario. Using the form in Appendix D, the team solicited the perspectives of Executive Division staff from the three agencies relative to:

• The importance of an effective public participation program. • The relationship of an effective public participation program to the public’s perception of

their agency. • Specific outcomes they would like to see from their public participation program. • Specific actions they would like managers and individual staff members to implement.

Overall, the agency executives defined an effective public participation program to be an open process enabling the exchange of meaningful information with the public. It would be a process that includes a diversity of people, provides technical support, speaks in plain English, and maintains communication through the entire process. Efforts towards more collaborative interactions with the public were recognized as the future of effective public participation, but often the desire for collaboration must be balanced with available resources. The agency executives believe an effective public participation process would build trust with the participants. It was universally felt that an agency’s public participation program was an important factor, but not necessarily the sole factor in the public’s perception of an agency. The kind of outcomes desired by Executive Management from effective public participation processes include a better public understanding of the decision-making processes and the agency’s ultimate decisions, a greater public appreciation for staff and the importance of our work, and trust building between the agency and the public.

9

Lastly, with respect to specific actions managers and individual staff members could take to improve effective public participation, agency executives identified the following specific actions: be proactive, rather than reactive; hold open meetings in addition to required public hearings; take time to attend seminars, conferences, brown bags, or other sessions to improve your communication skills; be open to consider social and economic issues as well as the science; be responsive, take the initiative and follow up with the public; take the time to provide comprehensive responses to the public’s questions and concerns; and lastly, remember you represent your agency, not just your work unit, section, division or bureau. Team members added their own experiences with public participation to the PPT inventory. Overall, based on their experiences, team members expressed a belief that the PPT process needed improvement. The current way of conducting public participation was not very effective, and in some cases was counter-productive. The main reasons expressed for unproductive experiences were lack of understanding by the participants of what they could and could not impact with their participation, and lack of meeting control by moderators. A DNR senior management member recommended we meet with Professor Maureen McDonough from Michigan State University to learn more about discerning which PPT works for different types of situations. Professor McDonough was contacted. She agreed to meet with the team and had a wealth of knowledge to pass along. Foremost to the team was the information and references she provided about example situations and PPT choice matrixes already developed by others. One item particularly interesting to the team was a decision matrix from the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) called the “Spectrum of Public Participation”. This example matrix provided the framework for the team’s subsequent matrix tool development work. Our review effort provided valuable insight about the large variety of PPT already developed and in use. The matrix tool developed by this project contains many of the PPT discovered through the team’s research efforts. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES SURVEYS In addition to the plethora of PPT information gathered to create the inventory, the team surveyed other state agencies for input about how their public participation processes functioned. A survey form was created and sent to individuals in the following agencies:

• Michigan Department of Agriculture • Michigan Department of Environmental Quality • Michigan Department of Natural Resources • Michigan Department of Transportation • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality • United States Army Corps of Engineers • United States Environmental Protection Agency • Virginia Department of Environmental Quality • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

10

A copy of the survey form and a summary of the responses are in Appendix E. As with most surveys, responses were limited in number, but were valuable in content. Most respondents believed the formal hearing process works well, but needs tweaking. One universal concern was hearing attendees do not understand our review criteria. They are unable to differentiate between what the agency can legally base a permit decision on and what is beyond the scope of its legal limits to control. One main example was concern over truck transport routes for new or expanded facilities looking for air or water related permits. Another universal theme in the survey responses was there should be more informational meetings before a formal public hearing is commenced on controversial issues. A comment expressed on multiple responses was the need to collaborate more with local officials in both the decision-making process and with public meeting arrangements. In addition to the general outside agency surveys, team members provided survey forms at three targeted public meetings held over the last few months. The number of responses from two meetings, the Lake Chemung Outdoor Resort Formal Public Hearing and the Upper Saginaw River Dredged Material Disposal Facility (DMDF) public information meeting were too few for statistical analyses, so they are included with the agency survey responses summary found in Appendix E. Enough survey responses were received from the third meeting, a Coal Fired Power Plant (CFPP) Informational Meeting to perform statistical analyses. The results of the CFPP meeting survey and statistical analysis are summarized in Appendix F. A description of each meeting follows. Lake Chemung Outdoor Resort Formal Public Hearing: On June 26, 2008, the Land and Water Management Division (LWMD) held a formal public hearing on the marina construction and operating permit applications for the Lake Chemung Outdoor Resort in Livingston County. The public hearing was held at the Genoa Township Hall. A survey was handed out to audience members at the registration table, located near the entrance to the room where the hearing was held. The audience filled out attendance cards and indicated whether or not they wanted to make a statement into the formal record. The attendance cards were collected, sorted and handed to the hearing officer. A microphone was set up towards the front of the audience and an additional microphone was set up by the hearing officer. The hearing officer began the formal hearing by reading a long hearing statement that included the LWMD statutory and rule authority, descriptions of the permit and appeal processes, and housekeeping procedures for the formal hearing. Next, the applicant described the project. The hearing officer then called on people who had indicated on attendance cards that they wanted to make statements into the hearing record. The hearing officer then closed the formal public hearing and held an informal question and answer session. Based on the questions asked during the informal question and answer session after the formal public hearing, many of the people in the audience did not understand what the DEQ can and cannot regulate under Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, and its administrative rules. Many people in the audience were chiefly concerned with how many boats are allowed on Lake Chemung, something the DEQ has very little authority to regulate. While many audience members did not like the answers given, they left the public hearing with a better understanding of what the DEQ can and cannot do under Part 301.

11

Ideas to try at future LWMD formal public hearings include: shortening the opening statement by putting the permit review criteria, permit process description, and appeals process information in handouts and web site postings; holding an informational meeting an hour before the start of the formal public hearing and including a Power Point presentation and an informal question and answer session with the DEQ staff; and have staff wear name tags with their first names in a large font. Upper Saginaw River Dredged Material Disposal Facility (DMDF): A public informational meeting was held at Saginaw Valley State University on June 24, 2008. The meeting was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The meeting was held in a large meeting room set up with rows of chairs, a podium, and two microphones in the front of the room. There were also easels in the front corner and along the back of the room holding site plans, aerial photographs, and facility maps. The USACE staff sat in the front, along with key DEQ staff: Director Chester, Deputy Director Sygo, Press Secretary Bob McCann, the Chief of the Water Management Section in the LWMD and the LWMD Saginaw Bay District Supervisor. Additional DEQ staff (including a number of Leadership Academy participants) sat in the back corner observing the meeting. Approximately 35 people attended the meeting, about half of which were either USACE or DEQ staff. After opening remarks by both the USACE and DEQ management, a Power Point presentation was given by the USACE staff. After the Power Point presentation, the audience was given an opportunity to ask questions, which both the USACE and DEQ staff answered. There were a number of audience questions. One audience member did monopolize a large segment of the question period with grandstanding tactics. Following a series of questions, DEQ Deputy Director Sygo gave a Power Point presentation concerning the baseline sampling of area residential wells and cisterns during the summer of 2008. Deputy Director Sygo then brought a microphone into the audience for additional questions. A member of a local environmental group asked a number of questions. At one point, Director Chester had to step in and ask that the county Department of Public Works chairman be allowed to answer the questions. The environmental activist was respectful after that. However, it was evident that there is a good deal of hostility between the county who cosponsored the DMDF and the township, local residents, and environmental activists who opposed the project and had lost a lawsuit. Director Chester talked to the local resident who was grandstanding after the meeting. Given the level of hostility felt by the township and some local residents towards this project, an open house meeting format with the DEQ and USACE staff available for one on one discussion with individuals would have been a better format. It was evident that the USACE (and, to a lesser extent, the DEQ) has a great deal of work ahead of it to establish trust with local residents.

12

Coal Fired Power Plant Informational Meeting: On June 25, 2008, the DEQ, AQD held an informational meeting on several permit applications it received for coal fired power plants. The meeting was held in the State Library auditorium in Lansing. A conference room across the hall from the auditorium was set up with display boards, informational hand outs and had AQD staff present to answer questions before the meeting. The informational material included program guides for other DEQ divisions. The DEQ, Environmental Science and Services Division (ESSD) staffed a registration table outside the auditorium. The AQD staff wore name tags with their first names in a large font. The speakers had yellow name tags. In the front of the auditorium there was a table with two microphones and a podium with a microphone. Two additional microphones were set up in side aisles, about two thirds of the way back. Key AQD staff sat in the front row in one corner. The meeting began with a Power Point presentation. The moderator went through the housekeeping rules in the first slide. The audience was asked to hold their questions until the second half of the meeting. Pink cards were distributed to the audience for them to write down their questions and hand them to the AQD staff. During the first half of the meeting, a number of the AQD staff gave formal presentations about various aspects of the issue and did not field questions from the audience. During the second half of the meeting, a panel of the AQD staff answered questions from the audience. The AQD staff sorted the cards by subject matter and distributed them to the appropriate staff on the panel. The panel had name cards on the table in the front of the auditorium. The AQD staff stayed after the meeting to answer additional questions. This meeting appeared to be well run and was a successful demonstration of several effective PPT, including the DEQ staff’s name tags, the initial Power Point presentation, having a separate room open before the meeting with display boards, informational material and the DEQ staff available to answer questions, and having the audience write their questions on cards, which were sorted and given to the panel during the question and answer period. The survey results also indicated that this was a successful public meeting. A number of survey responses were received and the summary statistics are in Appendix F. DNR Public Hearings A team member also attended two DNR public hearings as part of this project. The first was for public comment on the proposed black bear management plan, and the second was a town hall meeting on chronic wasting disease (CWD). The black bear meeting was facilitated by a MSU Extension employee, who controlled the meeting very well. Staff handed out note cards and asked everyone to write down their top two issues on black bear management. The facilitator then went around the room and asked everyone to state their number one issue. A DNR employee entered everyone’s comments into a Word document that was projected on a screen in the front of the room. The facilitator asked each person if the words on the screen accurately portrayed their comments. She then went around the room and asked for everyone’s second issue. As questions arose, a third staff person wrote them on a flip chart. After all comments were recorded, a high ranking DNR official took the lead, and answered both the questions on the flip chart and from the audience members. The meeting was very organized and cordial. There were business sized cards on the registration table, with a contact phone number and web site, which we ended up duplicating for our town hall meeting in Detroit.

13

The town hall meeting attended on CWD was held in Grayling. The meeting was held in the high school cafeteria, so there was sufficient space to accommodate the very large crowd in attendance. The meeting started with a presentation by two DNR staff and one MDA staff, who jointly explained what is CWD, and described the management plan being implemented. A question and answer period followed the formal presentation. The new technique observed in this circumstance was using note cards only for comments and questions. DNR staff circulated throughout the room collecting note cards, which the facilitator then read, and the expert staff answered. No verbal questions were allowed. At one point early in the question period, a loud groan was heard from an audience member. The facilitator immediately responded by stating that the experts were giving up their own time to meet with the public, and that everyone would be courteous to each other. No further outbursts were noted. Only allowing questions in writing definitely kept the meeting from getting overly negative and eliminated grandstanding. We were unable to determine how the audience felt about this approach. TESTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES A TOWN HALL MEETING Upon invitation from the DEQ Director, Steven Chester, the team tested PPT at his October 20, 2008, Detroit Town Hall Meeting. The meeting was arranged and scheduled by the local chapter of Sierra Club and was held at the Greater Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church. The meeting focus was environmental justice issues, but the recent Marathon refinery expansion permit became the primary topic of discussion. Specific PPT the project team decided to test included the following:

• Increasing advertising of an event through non-traditional methods. • Asking local leaders for event assistance. • Having display boards and literature on all the DEQ Divisions available. • Using greeters at the doors. • Using note cards as an alternative way to ask questions. • The DEQ staff being available after the meeting for individual discussions. • Providing evaluation forms to attendees. • Providing business card sized contact information cards.

The increased advertising seemed to work, as the resultant audience was three times larger than anticipated. Several survey responses indicated that many attendees learned of the meeting from flyers handed out door to door by the Sierra Club and from notices the DEQ asked local churches and community leaders to circulate. Conversely, the more traditional means of announcing public meetings often do not adequately reach a target audience. This supposition is supported by the responses to the survey question about how the attendees learned about the meeting. Asking local leaders for assistance was not as successful. No one responded in advance and there was a definite misunderstanding about the meeting arrangements between the DEQ and the Sierra Club. The meeting room location was changed following a pre-meeting facility visit by team members, hampering our information display efforts. The meeting format was decided on the local level with very little input from the DEQ, and it did not proceed smoothly. The main item to “take away” from the experience is: while involving local leaders in meeting planning and running is good public relations, the state agency needs to maintain overall control. The agency

14

also needs to do whatever is necessary to maintain communications with local leaders prior to the meeting date. On a positive note, 72% of the survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that having local community leaders assist at registration was a benefit. On the event day, staff arrived two hours early to set up the facility. Display boards had to be set up in the entry-way, due to the room change. While the DEQ displays were not set as originally intended, they were apparently successful, as 69% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the displays were valuable and had enhanced their meeting experience. The use of the DEQ staff as greeters at the meeting room doors was a mixed success, according to survey responses. Most respondents, 82% agreed or strongly agreed that the DEQ staff were friendly and courteous. However, only 59% felt having the DEQ greeters enhanced their meeting experience. Also, only 48% felt that DEQ staff provided adequate assistance prior to the start of the meeting. While the feedback is mixed, the team believes the minimal effort behind having greeters is worth continuing. It is possible that the cramped room setup at this meeting was a factor in the somewhat negative or mixed responses. The team wanted to test the use of note cards as a vehicle for attendees to get their questions asked. Unfortunately, the moderator used the cards ineffectively and did not give equal time to the questions on cards. Because a small number of audience members were allowed to monopolize the discussion, several questions were never read, and therefore went unanswered. Only 52% of the survey respondents agreed that the note cards were an effective way to get their question asked, and only 39% said their question was adequately answered. In this case, the cards were not effective. However, if used properly like they were at the DEQ, AQD June 25, 2008 public information meeting on permit applications for CFPP, and at the DNR town hall meeting in Grayling, the team believes question note cards can be a very useful tool. Less than half of the attendees filled out evaluation forms. However, we received valuable information from the forms we did receive. While the question was not asked, we believe that many attendees appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback. The survey form and a summary of the responses are attached in Appendix G. The single largest take-away from this meeting is a moderator alone can make or break a meeting. This person must be able to handle hostile individuals, keep to time schedules, and generally control a meeting. For controversial meetings, a good moderator is imperative. A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING Another somewhat less formal test of PPT was performed by the team at the DEQ, AQD meeting on October 22, 2008 in Detroit. This was the first test of a few new PPT by the AQD. The AQD invited community leaders from Delray and the surrounding areas of Detroit to meet and participate in a pubic participation planning strategy session for the local community, regarding the pending permit application for the Synagro Biosolids Incinerator near the Detroit Waste Water Treatment Plant. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the community to key AQD technical staff working on the project, and to offer an early input opportunity, before the permit application was received. At this meeting the AQD was seeking input into the brief summary document "Background and Common Concerns" before they finalized it for use during the formal public comment period. The meeting itself was a new PPT not previously employed by the AQD. In an effort to provide the application documents to the public, the AQD decided to also make the documents available on the internet.

15

This action allowed discussions with community leaders at an early stage of the process, and was an effort to improve outreach and community involvement. This meeting was unusual since it provided discussions on the pubic participation aspects of the project prior to the application being received. Based on the comments received, the team learned that a helpful addition is having a DEQ technical person explain to the public what is proposed in a permit application and describe when and where pubic comments would be most effective in a permit review and decision process. The community wanted a DEQ statement clearly explaining how the proposed permitted activity may impact them in terms they understand. This meeting seemed to build trust between the DEQ and the local community because they were given an opportunity to be heard and involved early in the process. A more detailed summary of the meeting and the PPT observed in use is included as Appendix H. MATRIX TOOL The team developed a tool for staff to use in planning for and implementing public participation activities. This matrix tool of PPT versus meeting type was developed based on the decision matrix from the IAP2 source obtained from Professor McDonough. A copy of the spreadsheet tool is in Appendix I. The tool, entitled “Public Participation Techniques Matrix” will also be posted on the DEQ Intranet. The tool is color coded based on the level of public participation. The level of public participation ranges from informing to collaborating. Informing is the lowest level of public participation, and involves providing information to the public to assist them in understanding problems, alternatives, and solutions. Collaboration involves partnering with the public in the decision-making process. The tool identifies specific PPT. The techniques are grouped into one of five categories; formal meetings, group interactions, informal discussions, feedback, and other. The tool also identifies specific performance factors met by each of the techniques. An important observation that can be made from the matrix tool is that most of the PPT implemented by our agencies fall into the lower levels of public participation. Most of our efforts focus on informing and consulting. If we are to improve the effectiveness of public participation, we will need to implement processes that increase public involvement and collaboration. STRENGTHS OF EACH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUE The team identified the positives and negatives for three major public interaction processes our agencies undertake; formal public hearings, formal public information meetings, and informal informational open houses. The summary of each, along with suggestions for improvements in each one, is included in Appendix J. The team also identified the strengths of each PPT listed in the matrix tool. Weaknesses were not identified as the matrix tool provides an excellent decision tool for a staff person to determine which PPT may work best in their situation. A summary of the PPT strengths is included in Appendix J.

16

LEADERSHIP SKILLS GAINED BY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS One of the stated goals of the project was to develop future leaders by improving competencies, knowledge, and experience, with an associated objective of meeting at least one Individual Development Plan (IDP) goal for each team member. Each team member has provided their individual assessments for inclusion in this section of the report. Debbie Smith Ostrander selected this team project to help develop her "Communication" competency, with an emphasis on conflict resolution and negotiation. She has been able to observe several public meetings/hearings where communication was both effective and ineffective. Further, the project has allowed her to study and make recommendations on improved methods of communicating with the public. Additionally, attending these meetings has exposed her to a wide variety of state programs, enhancing her knowledge area and "gain cross-functional (multi-program/multi-location) experience". Scott Miller’s IDP goals of building trust and decision making were met through the Action Learning Project assignment. Specifically, working with the team he learned and improved his ability to build trust. The project was a team effort, which required trusting the other team members to accomplish the tasks they were assigned, and required him to complete his assigned tasks. It also required that he participate in the project as a whole, attend team meetings, and provide constructive and respectful input. From the group process he learned how to make better decisions. He learned that his way of doing things is not the only way, and not always the right way. Jim Milne’s IDP goals include developing the Building Partnerships and Facilitating Change competencies. The team had to subordinate some of the DEQ goals in holding the October 20, 2008 town hall meeting in order to accommodate some of the Sierra Club’s objectives. The DEQ made a good faith effort towards establishing good interpersonal relationships with some of the Sierra Club representatives, with varying degrees of success. The team established good interpersonal relationships with the pastor and deacon of Greater Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church, the site of the meeting. Jim Milne is strengthening his skills in the Facilitating Change competency by working to improve the way the LWMD conducts public hearings for permit applications under the various statutes it administers. He partnered with the LWMD Lansing District Supervisor to conduct a formal public hearing on June 26, 2008 for the marina construction and operating permit applications received from the Lake Chemung Outdoor Resort. He surveyed the audience at this public hearing to document the way the LWMD currently conducts its formal public hearings. Since that time, Jim has sought other opportunities to test PPT at a formal public hearing for marina construction and operating permit applications. Two formal public hearings for proposed marinas are scheduled on December 18, 2008 and January 15, 2009. Informal informational meetings will be held one-half hour before the start of the formal public hearings to: explain the informational meeting and formal public hearing formats; explain what the DEQ does and does not regulate under Parts 301 and 303 of 1994 PA 451; and answer questions from the audience. The formal public hearing statement will be shortened by pulling out the information on statutory requirements and the administrative appeals process, which will be made available to the audience through handouts and the January public hearing web site postings. The

17

results of the December 18, 2008 formal public hearing are in Appendix M. Jim will report on the results of the January 15, 2009 formal public hearing to the LWMD division management team in a separate report. The project team also made a presentation at the December 16, 2008 meeting of all the LWMD supervisors. In addition, Jim hopes to have effective PPT included on the agenda for the LWMD professional development training in 2010. Robert Wagner’s participation with the Action Learning team provided a unique opportunity to work with a variety of individuals with diverse backgrounds. It inspired him to effectively communicate with team members to achieve a high level of success in the design, implementation, and reporting of the team’s Action Learning Project. It provided him with the opportunity to lead through vision and values. Lastly, he gained both valuable experience that he would not have otherwise had the opportunity for in the public participation process and access to experts in the public participation field. Chuck Thomas’ IDP goals met by working on this project were building effective partnerships and developing a successful team. His normal duties usually involve him working individually. Working on an Action Learning team project has given Chuck an opportunity to improve team-building skills and move away from relying solely on his own individual work to complete a goal. Larry Bean’s IDP skills developed as part of this public participation project centered on communication. This included ensuring that decisions are accepted and understood by the group, listening skills, team playing, and presentation skills. PROJECT DISCOVERIES AND CONCLUSIONS A number of valuable insights were gained during the project, which need to be considered as we move forward. The list below details the items learned.

• Support for our agencies is highly dependent upon the public trust we garner. To increase public support we must enhance the public participation process.

• There is a multitude of effective PPT in existence. • Many PPT have been utilized by others, and can be readily used by our agencies. • How a technique is applied can make a big difference in its success. A technique that

enhances the public experience at one meeting can be detrimental at another meeting if the personnel arranging and leading the meeting apply the technique poorly.

• Since not all techniques are effective in all situations, use of the matrix tool will greatly assist staff in deciding which techniques to utilize in each public participation opportunity.

• Staff in all three agencies must be encouraged to improve public interaction skills through training opportunities.

• Training alone is not sufficient: staff must be encouraged to further develop their skills by applying what they learned in their trainings during future public participation forums and to further refine their PPT based on their experiences.

18

The team developed the following conclusions.

• Improving PPT will enhance an agency’s ability to achieve its goals. • Use of the matrix tool will greatly enhance public participation through the utilization of

the correct techniques in each situation. • Training and skill development for all staff working with the public are absolutely

necessary. • The next step is the development of an Implementation Plan to achieve better public

participation. The team identified the following challenges to improving the public participation methods of our agencies. After each identified challenge, the team has described a means to overcome the challenge. • Challenge: The public no longer relies on the expertise of agency staff.

o Response: Our agencies need to build trust with legislators, stakeholder groups and the public. One way to build trust is for the agencies to increase use of PPT that fall in the inclusive and collaboration categories on the spectrum of increasing levels of public participation in agency decision making.

• Challenge: Many of our statutes and rules have outdated public participation requirements. o Response: There is nothing in the statutes and administrative rules prohibiting

agencies from supplementing minimum requirements with other, more effective, PPT. As statutes and administrative rules are revised, consideration should be given to improving public notice and public participation requirements. Frequently, stakeholder groups are convened to work on administrative rule amendments. The agencies can use the stakeholder meeting process to collaborate on ways to improve public notice and public participation practices.

• Challenge: Training and travel budget limitations prevent or severely curtail staff training. o Response: All management levels must realize staff training must be given a high

priority in order to increase effectiveness. At the same time, agency staff and managers must explore using alternative means of providing training such as web casts or videoconferencing to stretch limited budgets.

• Challenge: Staff will resist changing their public participation processes. Some staff believe public participation events are simply another checklist item to be completed before making a decision.

o Response: Agency staff is very aware of the impacts of their agency’s budget crisis on their jobs. Most are aware of the growing levels of distrust in our agencies from legislators, stakeholder groups, and the general public. Many realize that PPT must be improved. Management from the first-line supervisors up to the agency directors must harness their staff’s growing awareness and dissatisfaction, and convince staff of the critical importance of the need to change the way our agencies operate.

Every staff person must realize that they are the face of their agency whenever they interact with the public, legislators and stakeholder groups. The success or failure of these interactions colors how the public, legislators, and stakeholder groups perceive our agencies. Anyone who has ever had to respond to a log letter or an inquiry from a legislative aide knows how these perceptions can significantly impact our agencies. Nothing short of the survival of our agencies depends on the success of our interactions with the public, legislators and stakeholder groups.

19

This awareness, coupled with staff’s innate desire to be more effective, must drive our efforts to change our public participation practices. Merely getting through public participation events is not sufficient any longer, if it ever was sufficient. Division and agency senior management need to be aware of unintentional road blocks that limit the effectiveness of our PPT. A good example is the lengthy formal public hearing statement that was created in response to concerns from the Environmental Advisory Council. The formal hearing statement is now too long and contains too much information for the audience to comprehend. First- and second-line supervisors need to reward change made by staff when they are willing to experiment with more effective PPT. The PPT matrix can be used by staff without receiving formal training. Many of the techniques are not new and are not hard to implement. Staff needs to be encouraged to try different PPT, survey their audiences, and learn from both the survey results and their experiences. While training is not necessary before using the matrix tool, some training will enhance staff ability to better select which techniques to use in their given situations. There is no single technique that works in every situation. Staff must match their PPT to the event format and their available resources. Since very few agency employees have experience with techniques that involve the public or collaborate with the public, training is especially needed in these areas. Mentoring of new staff by experienced staff will speed up and smooth out their progress along the public participation learning curve. RECOMMENDATIONS As our agencies evolve due to very real funding constraints and potential political pushes for change, having effective public participation is absolutely necessary. The culmination of this project to identify PPT, test some techniques, and develop a tool for staff use does not end the effort to have better public participation in permitting, rule-making, and information processes. Rather, it leads into the next phase, which is the development of an implementation plan to improve public participation across the entire spectrum. An implementation plan should include using the matrix tool developed by the current project, providing or encouraging staff training in a number of public interaction arenas, providing opportunities for staff to experience and implement different PPT, and setting specific goals for measurable progress. The matrix tool is somewhat self-explanatory, but some staff training on how to use it may be appropriate. The tool is ready to use and the team recommends its use begin immediately. It is imperative that staff receive proper training in effectively engaging the public. The DNR is the only one of the three departments that has a designated Training Advisory Team (TAT). The role of the TAT is to create training programs, coordinate overlapping courses between different divisions, and keep informed on what the divisions are doing. They also have specific training programs for different classifications, such as supervisors, administrative support, and career management. The DNR has sent some staff to mediation training, who now train the rest of the department.

20

The team recommends that each department have staff trained to be facilitators. One potential training program is available through the MSU Extension. The DNR is actually using the MSU Extension staff to facilitate public meetings, but it would still be beneficial to have department staff trained as well. These staff would be available for training, consultation, and assistance at large and/or controversial public hearings/meetings. While training is traditionally one of the first cuts in tight budget times, lack of training only increases the challenges faced by the departments. At a minimum, staff should be encouraged to take existing Civil Service courses, such as “Communication that Moves People”, and “Leading Effective Meetings”, or Quick Knowledge on-line courses such as “Building Trust and Credibility”, and “Managing Disagreement”. Additionally, the team suggests that an action learning project team for the 2009 Leadership Academy develop and test, if possible, training modules on the matrix tool developed by this project. A more complete list of training ideas and opportunities are in Appendix K. An implementation plan should also include a component that encourages and enables staff to attend and participate in a wide variety of public participation arenas. Often, experiences gained in actual situations provide as much, if not more, training than what is obtained in a formal classroom setting. Surveying the audience is an excellent way to determine what they thought of the public participation event and learn how our agencies can improve our PPT. Audience survey results should be shared with the agency staff involved in the public participation process as part of an “After-Action” review process. One of the after action debriefing models developed or adapted by the 2008 Leadership Academy’s Debriefing/”After-Action” Model Action Learning Project Team should be part of that experience so that all agency staff, not just those involved in the public participation process, can learn from the public participation experience. The success or failure of any program to improve the public participation process must be evaluated. Consequently, the implementation plan of each department must have detailed goals whereby the departments can measure if the goals are achieved or not, and if not, why. The team believes that effective public participation will become, if it is not already, one of the most important tasks our agencies undertake. Effective public participation builds trust in the agencies, which may translate into increased support for the agencies by the legislature, other interested parties, and the general public. Such support is essential if the three agencies are to continue to provide excellent environmental stewardship for future generations.

21

APPENDIX A

PROJECT CHARTER

25

APPENDIX B

PROJECT WORK PLAN

28

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF PPT-RELATED DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

and

INDIVIDUAL TEAM MEMBER EXPERIENCES WITH

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

29

PPT TEAM SUMMARY NOTES PPT TOPICS AND/OR DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 1. Base Information.

• Gathered by Larry from team member experiences and observations. 2. Draft Improvements to Public Hearing Process for Part 115, Solid Waste Management,

dated 5/13/04. • The one page document provided steps that were recommended to improve

communication between the DEQ and the public as part of the Part 115 public hearing process.

3. DEQ Public Involvement Handbook, A Citizens Guide.

• This is a handbook produced by the DEQ intended to encourage public involvement by providing information on three topics. First it provides a general understanding of the function and workings of state government. Next, it offers ideas on how to become informed by providing how and where to obtain resource information of interest. Third, it suggests way people can use this knowledge to become actively involved in environmental programs.

4. Check It Out! Planning Your Accessible Meeting by Michigan Department of Labor.

• This is a guide for public meetings to help ensure that the meetings are accessible to everyone, specifically handicap accessible.

5. Working Effectively With Angry Citizens and Practical Techniques for Successful

Public Meetings, 1994. • This was bulleted for a training session for DNR staff in 1994.

6. Risk Communication and Public Involvement Course by EPA, 2005. 7. Engaging the American People, EPA Public Participant Policy Review Work Group.

• This document is the final report by an EPA work group whose purpose was to evaluate existing public participation practices and policies, and provide recommendations.

8. Tips for Preparing a Public Participation Plan Pursuant to the New York State

Department of Environment Conservation. Commissioner Policy-29, Environmental Justice and Permitting. Issued December 4, 2003, Revised February 1, 2006. • New York has issued a policy which amends their permit review process to address

environmental justice concerns. The policy requires applicants with a potential impact on an area of environmental justice to submit a written public participation plan. The policy spells out the requirements of such a plan, and gives assistance to permitees on the various requirements.

30

9. Summary Project Report Public Participation Methods: Evolving and Operationalizing

an Evaluation Framework – Developing and Testing a Toolkit for Evaluating the Success of Public Participation Exercises. Dr. Lynn Frewer, Dr. Gene Rowe, Roy Marsh, and Catherine Reynolds. • This summary report provides an overview of the results of a research project to develop

a set of validated methodological tools to enable those running public consultation exercises to evaluate their effectiveness. The researchers did not feel a method existed for evaluating the effectiveness or value of different public participation exercises.

10. A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Permitting. Understanding the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Its Role in Michigan, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. • This is a book that gives a very good basic overview of the NPDES process. It starts out

talking about the water resources in Michigan and gives an explanation of watersheds. It goes into the Clean Water Act, then gives in-depth information on the NPDES permit process. It covers enforcement, then ends with a chapter on public participation opportunities in the permitting process.

11. DEQ Model Public Hearing Statement and AQD Model Public Hearing Statement.

• This document is a template for the moderator of a DEQ (or AQD) public hearing. It gives relevant information to the attendees. The AQD has modified the DEQ model to fit their needs, but it is still very similar. They also have a model Public Information Meeting Statement, which is for the less formal informational meetings that they are holding in conjunction with public hearings now.

12. Summary of Lessons Learned, 6/05 EPA Workshop for DEQ Lansing Staff.

• Summary of the lessons learned by staff. 13. PPT For Texas City Test of E-Democracy. 14. Making a Difference: A Guide to Evaluating Public Participation in Central

Government. 15 Michigan Statewide Planning Process Participation Plan Michigan MDOT. 16. Detroit River International Crossing Study.

• This document did not provide any PPT information useful to the team project. 17. Civil Environmental Discourse Project, Survey and Focus Group Findings, July 2002,

Prepared for Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council by Public Sector Consultants. • This report investigated attitudes, helpfulness and information sources, public

involvement with DEQ decision making, environmental group involvement with the DEQ, and the DEQ decision making through various focus groups and the use of surveys. Overall it identifies that better communication between the DEQ and stakeholders would provide for a more transparent decision making process which would be good for the public and the environment. When considering the effectiveness of communication methods, one-on-one contact (telephone call, letters and in-person) was viewed as the most effective means of communication with the DEQ staff. Interestingly, comments

31

received at public hearings were viewed as the least effective means of communication with the DEQ. The majority of the participants indicated the public gets its environmental information primarily from the media as oppose to the DEQ or the DEQ web site. Some other recommendations include the hosting of periodic meetings in the district offices to foster dialogue and civil discourse and the creation of an oversight board for the DEQ.

18. Public Meeting Checklist, RRD.

• An excellent resource for preparation and organization prior to hosting a public meeting or public hearing.

19. Public Participation/Noticing Requirements of the DEQ RRD.

• A matrix tool that can be used to evaluate public participation and noticing requirements required by statute or rule. A good resource for any new staff or staff unfamiliar with such requirements.

20. DEQ Discussion Summary – Organizational Development to Improve

Communications Seminar Oct. 2006. • This summary provides a list of things that the DEQ managers stated they are proud of

regarding Public Communication. The summary lists many positive outcomes and provides general ideas and principles for effective public communication.

21. 2006 DEQ/MDA/DNR Leadership Academy Public Perception and Awareness Team

Action Learning Report, January 29,2007, prepared by L. Esman, B. Feighner, D. Fiedler, J. Park and J. Spieles. • This Action Learning Team project report focuses upon the public perception of the

DEQ, MDA and DNR and the role of customer surveys. Important items learned from this project are:

o Customers are surprised and impressed when a regulatory agency seeks their input through customer surveys.

o Timeliness in agency response, whether related to a permit or merely providing information to the customer, is often the single most important factor that shapes our customer’s perception of our agencies.

o Surveys with open ended questions conducted by staff knowledgeable of the program, allow customers to provided input on any issue important to them.

o Surveys conducted by staff directly involved with the program provide greater opportunity for making program changes.

o Self-reflection is an important learning tool and catalyst for causing behavioral improvements.

22. AQD Public Participation Procedures for Renewable Operating Permits, 6/29/07.

• This document is an internal AQD procedure that is useful for the AQD staff but is not useful for our team's purposes. It is mostly "who does what" instructions for the public notice and public hearing processes.

• Appendix B of the document outlines how comments received during the public

comment period are handled. Comments about issues that are not pertinent to the permit are noted in the file but AQD staff do not respond. Comments on relevant but "non-substantive" issues (e.g., grammatical and typographical errors, improving the clarity of the permit) result in corrections being made. The AQD staff call the person making the comment to let them know that the change was made, note the comment

32

and response in the file and send a copy of the final report to the person who made the comment. Relevant but minor technical comments are responded to by telephone, noted in the file and a copy of the final document sent to the person making the comment.

• Substantive comments are documented in the file. A summary of the substantive

comments and the AQD responses are sent to the people who made the comments.

• Appendix F of the document outlines the process for renewable operating permit public hearings, which follows the DEQ standard formal public hearing procedure (i.e., hand out attendance cards to the audience, the hearings officer reads an opening statement, people who indicated that they want to comment on the record are called to the microphone to provide testimony for five minutes and the relevant comments are incorporated into the administrative record).

• The document contains numerous acronyms which are not spelled out the first time that

they are used. Some of the acronyms can be looked up in the list of the DEQ acronyms on the intranet home page. Others (e.g., FITT) weren't in the list of the DEQ acronyms so it is difficult to know what they mean. This might be ok if the only intended audience is the AQD staff who know what the acronyms mean, but it detracts from the document from an outsider's perspective.

23. A Citizen's Guide to Participation in Michigan's Air Pollution Control Program.

• This 44 page document is an excellent overview that is potentially applicable to other divisions within DEQ with some program/statute specific modifications.

24. RCRA Public Participation Manual, 1996 Edition. 25. Communicating with the Public: Making it Work for You, A Resource for DEQ Staff,

Fall 2005. 26. Implementation Plan of the DEQ for the EAC Recommendations to Improve Public

Involvement, FY 2005. • This document is not really useful for our team's purposes. It is in a strategic plan type

format where the DEQ says how it is responding to the EAC recommendations. Because of the format it does not provide detailed examples of effective PPT or guidance to the DEQ staff on how to effectively involve the public.

27. DEQ Policy #09-008: Public Involvement in the Contested Case Process, dated

12/15/2004 and revised 9/22/2006. • This document outlines the procedures the DEQ will follow when there is a contested

case hearing. Public Involvement is limited to parties that have legal standing in the case. As such, it does not contain any useful PPT information pertinent to the team project.

28. DEQ Policy #09-007: Public Involvement in Department Programs and Activities,

dated 2/21/2003 and revised 1/14/2005. • This document details the DEQ philosophy on public involvement and outlines some

specific methods to encourage staff to improve public participation.

33

29. DEQ Policy #01-004: Administrative Rules Promulgation, dated 4/18/1997 and revised

2/15/2007. • This document details how rules are promulgated. While it lists the required

opportunities for public comment, it does not contain any PPT information relative to the PPT team project.

30. Public Involvement in the DEQ, Recommendations from the Environmental Advisory

Council, February 2004. • This document details the recommendations of the council to the DEQ that in their

opinion would foster better public participation in the DEQ decision-making processes. 31. Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation at the USEPA. Lessons Learned,

Barriers, and Innovative Approaches. January 2001. • In the 1990s the EPA increased its efforts to provide constituents a much greater

opportunity to play a key role in decision-making process. • This document is described as a valuable tool for staff who are:

o Considering new initiatives. o Seeking to improving existing initiatives. o In need of new perspectives on stakeholder involvement and participation.

• This document also contains lessons learned in partnerships, community outreach, public participation in agency decisions, and capacity building.

32. EPA’s Public Involvement Policy.

• In this document public involvement is defined to encompass the full range of actions and processes that the EPA uses to engage the public in the agency’s work, and means that the agency considers public concerns, values, and preferences when making decisions.

• This document identifies a long list of goals for public involvement processes highlighted by “foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence, and openness between the agency and the public.”

Note: In each section of the remainder of this appendix document, observations from the documents reviewed are provided by referencing the identifying number of each document listed above. Not all documents reviewed contained information pertinent to each following discussion category.

34

LIST OF AUDIENCES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: 1. Base Information

• Citizens. • Stakeholders, who are everyone involved in the issue. • Environmental organizations. • Local governments. • Legislators. • Riparian property owners. • Attorneys. • Industry associations. • Home owner's associations.

7. EPA Public Policy Review Work Group

• EPA. 8. New York Environmental Justice Public Participation

• Applicants with projects that affect potential environmental justice areas. 9. UK Summary Project Report

• UK Department of Health. 11. DEQ and AQD Model Public Hearing Statements

• Public hearing attendees. 12. EPA Workshop for DEQ

• DEQ staff. 13. Texas City Test

• Any pertinent public.

35

PPT INVENTORY: A) Formal: 1. Base Information

• Public hearing, receiving comments from the public for the official record. Oral testimony.

• Public meeting, presentation and question answer format. • Panel discussion. • Open house discussion, where staff is available to answer questions at stations

outside hearing room and prior to hearing. • Have audience write questions on cards for staff or panel to read and answer. This

is in addition to or in place of the audience asking questions verbally and providing follow up questions verbally.

• Provide mass mailings to citizens, local units of government, and legislators. Direct mailing to individuals who have previously expressed interest in the subject.

• Present a Power Point presentation. • Provide a Frequently Asked Questions document. • Respond to written comments received. • Conduct follow up site visits in response to the comments received. • Develop publications. • Post information or applications on the web site. This will include electronic copies of

applications, fact sheets, draft permit terms and conditions, and links to a description of the permitting process or other relevant information on the DEQ web site.

• Provide E-Mail notification that new information has been posted on the DEQ web site. This is for people who sign up for this notification.

• Hold general education sessions, information sessions to provide information and educate about rules, permitting process, public comment process, appeal process, and overview of proposals.

• Receive written public comments to be received throughout the public comment period. • Accept public comment via the internet.

2. Part 115 Hearing Process Improvement • Allow for an informal question and answer period before the public hearing. This

question and answer period should be scheduled and published in the hearing notice. • The presentation of the public hearing should follow the model public hearing statement.

3. DEQ Citizen’s Guide

• Provide a Public Involvement Handbook or Citizens Guide. • The DEQ community meetings where the director and staff periodically hold open

meetings in various communities throughout the state to discuss environmental issues. 8. New York Environmental Justice Public Participation

• Requires applicants with a potential area of environmental justice to submit a written public participation plan as part of their permit application. • Lists specifically what must be included in the plan.

36

9. UK Summary Project Report

• Nine evaluation criteria were developed, from which methodologies were developed: o Representative – Participants should comprise a broad sample of affected

persons. o Independence - The process should be conducted in an unbiased way. o Early Involvement – Participants should be involved as early as possible. o Influence – The output of the procedure should have a genuine impact on policy. o Transparency – The process should be transparent. o Resource Accessibility – Participants should have access to the appropriate

resources. o Task Definition – The nature and scope of the project should be clearly defined. o Structured Decision Making – The exercise should use appropriate mechanisms

for structuring and displaying the decision making process. o Cost Effectiveness – The procedure should in some sense be cost effective from

the point of view of the sponsors. 10. Tip of the Mitt Citizen’s Guide

• Lists opportunities for public involvement. • Instructs how to make comments. • Advises how to request a hearing. • Advises how to be involved in local processes.

11. DEQ and AQD Model Public Hearing Statements

• Language for required public hearings presented. 13. Texas City Test

• Texas has implemented the use of a web-based software program which allows the public to comment on specific documents. The comments are tracked within the document – so the reviewer can tell exactly which section of the document the comment pertains to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B) Informal: 1. Base Information

• Public meeting, informal discussions and questions and answers with a small group. • Phone conversations. • E-mails. • Individual meetings. • Newsletters. • Web sites. • Public speaking tours. • Addressing targeted audiences. • Blogs. • Quasi-social networking areas.

37


• Evaluate the agency’s 1981 Public Participation Policy and the 40CFR part 25 regulations.

• Conduct an analysis of all the agency’s statutes, regulations, executive orders, and relevant policies.

• Request and evaluate public comment on the need to revise the 1981 policy. • Review agency practices and activities that occurred in the last 20 years.

8. New York Environmental Justice Public Participation

• Provides tips on identifying stakeholders and compiling contact lists in environmental justice areas.

• Provides tips to assist the applicant in complying with the plan requirements in environmental justice areas.


• AQD model for informational meeting presented. 28. DEQ Public Involvement Policy 09-007:

• Program Managers should consider the following: • Increasing staff skills in communication, conflict resolution and public meeting

facilitation. • Encouraging staff involvement in work-related professional organizations. • Identifying ways to improve public involvement. • Facilitating public understanding of issues before DEQ. • Advancing the public awareness about how they can participate. • Improving working relationships with local government. • Improving technical means of disseminating information, including using the internet.

PRO/CON LIST FOR THE IDENTIFIED PPT: Pro: 1. Base Information

• The public meeting format helps to relay relevant and factual information to the public. This format also helps to alleviate concerns by the public that are based on speculation or misinformation. They can also learn the constraints under which the DEQ can operate and what process must be followed to make a decision or to take an action, depending on the site specific issues.

• Using the cards to obtain questions will now be the standard practice in the AQD Permit

Section for a number of reasons. The cards are a good way to get an information meeting started. Often times, folks are afraid to be the first one to come to the microphone and ask a question. The cards give the DEQ staff a chance to think about their responses and get comfortable with what they are going to say before they respond. Yet, use of the cards does not preclude folks from asking questions verbally. The cards help the DEQ staff organize the responses so that the appropriate staff person addresses the question. The cards help to minimize redundant

38

questions/responses. In a contentious meeting the cards can be used to bring a meeting under control, i.e., if the crowd gets wound up, taking a break to answer a few card questions can help settle things down.


• EPA work group concluded 1981 policy & Part 25 regulations were still valid. • EPA work group determined that new participation techniques and information

technologies provide the agency with opportunities to involve the public. 8. New York Environmental Justice Public Participation

• Assures areas of environmental justice are given adequate information and opportunities to comment on proposed projects.

• Gives good tips on PPT. 9. UK Summary Project Report

• Effective evaluation of the process will help to improve methods, and thus public opinion of the agencies.

10. Tip of the Mitt Citizen’s Guide

• Simple language. • Includes public participation methods throughout the book.


• Provides moderator guidance. • Keeps hearings standardized.

12. EPA Workshop for DEQ

• Staff training helps with consistency, improves PPT. • Staff brainstorming. • Staff buy-in.

13. Texas City Test

• Provides a user friendly platform for the public to provide comments. • Saves time for reviewers.

23. A Citizen's Guide to Participation in Michigan's Air Pollution Control Program

• Summarizes how local, state and federal governments regulate air quality. • Discusses what types of complaints the AQD does and does not investigate and what

types of information the complainant should provide to the AQD. • Discusses the role of local zoning, planning and development to address other issues

over which the AQD does not have jurisdiction. Contains a good discussion of the public notice process and provides tips on how to provide effective public comments. Discusses informational meetings.

• Has a good summary table of whether various permits, rule changes, enforcements and other actions require public notice, informational meetings, public comment, public hearings and whether the public can appeal a decision.

• Has an excellent section on being an effective public participant at local and state levels. It provides information on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

39

• Provides information on how to contact the AQD with a complaint, and has very useful information in its appendixes. Appendix A has a glossary of commonly used air pollution control terms. Appendix B is the district/field office map. Appendix C provides information on administrative contested case hearings in a Q & A format, including what sort of results the public can expect. Appendix D is a table listing additional information sources for topics like who has to get an air permit, how to get a copy of an air permit, how to comment on a public notice, complaints, contested case hearings, enforcement actions, FOIA requests, public participation, etc. Links to various web pages are provided in the table.

• This would be an excellent information resource to hand out at public hearings and informational meetings. As an all-inclusive information resource, it may allow the standard formal public hearing statement to be shortened by eliminating the need to describe the statutes, rules and appeals process in the hearing statement. It is available on the DEQ web site.

24. RCRA Public Participation Manual

• RCRA applicants who are thorough are required to have pre-application public meetings before they submit a Part B application.

• Discusses in detail how to establish a facility mailing list and who should be on the mailing list.

• Flexibility to have Availability Meetings (Informational Open Houses) in addition to formal public hearings or meetings where facility and agency personnel are available to answer questions one on one.

• Has chapters discussing PPT for pre-application and permit application meetings; permit modifications, and corrective actions.

• Have checklists for pre-application meetings, availability meetings, formal public meetings, public hearings, facility mailing lists, information repositories, corrective actions and environmental justice reviews.

• Appendixes with example fact sheets, press releases, public notices, etc. A glossary of acronyms. Potentially applicable for ongoing facility operation permits issued by the AQD, WB and WHMD as well as state and federally funded contaminated site investigations and clean ups.

• Summaries at the ends of chapters to aid those who do not have time to read the entire document in skimming through the document to find what you need.

• Emphasizes flexibility (e.g., using translators, including targeting information releases to foreign language broadcasts) in the PPT to achieve the goal of maximizing informing and involving all interested parties.

25. Communicating with the Public: Making it Work for You, A Resource for DEQ Staff,

Fall 2005. • Compiled input from the DEQ staff attending communication workshops. • Emphasizes the importance of citizen involvement. • Provides practical tips for the DEQ staff on how to be better communicators. • Provides suggestions for how the DEQ staff can help citizens communicate more

effectively with the DEQ. Contains a section on how field staff can better serve the community.

• Tips on building relationships with local officials. • Tips on improving public meetings, including holding informational Q & A meetings

before formal public meetings or hearings. • Contains a section on dealing with difficult people.

40

• Contains sections on dealing with legislators and media (in addition to the previous bullet item).

• Short, eight-page well packaged and easy to read. 30. EAC Recommendations to DEQ

• Citizen Advisory Council: While the EAC did not recommend a new advisory council in its document, it did list the following reasons to have one.

• Regularly scheduled forum for public input. • Advise the DEQ Director. • Provide a level playing field for environmental decision-making. • Improve credibility of the DEQ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con: 1. Base Information.

• The public hearing alone does nothing to alleviate fears or answer questions by members of the public. A hearing does not directly address many of their concerns.

• Attendance at the public hearings is affected by such factors as the nature of the project, the project location and the timing of the public notice/public hearing. A savvy applicant can manipulate the process to limit public input (e.g., submit a construction permit application for a marina during the off-season when most lake residents are absent). Lake and riparian property owner associations are copied on the public notice, when they are identified by the applicant. So some interested parties may not receive copies of the public notice.


• An EPA work group concluded that 1981 policy and Part 25 regulations. • Did not incorporate new statutes or public participation innovations. • Have not been adequately publicized internally or externally. • Have not been consistently implemented.

• An EPA work group determined: • New participation techniques and information technologies provide challenges for the

agency in reaching those with or without the internet. • Few centralized tools or resources are available to staff in engaging the public. • Streamlining decision making should not preclude meaningful public participation.


• Environmental justice guidance is geared towards regulated community, not regulators. 9. UK Summary Project Report

• This was a summary and not all the study information was presented. 10. Tip of the Mitt Citizen’s Guide

• Heavy use of acronyms. • Talks about public participation from public view, not agency view. • Need someone in agency to verify that information about the NPDES program is correct. • Is a book, not a brochure.

41


• Time and money for training is scarce. 13. Texas City Test

• License agreements will cost money - no specifics on cost. 23. A Citizen's Guide to Participation in Michigan's Air Pollution Control Program

• Making numerous copies of a 44 page document for several hundred people attending a public hearing is expensive.

• Its length may intimidate the general public, although it is a fairly easy read. • It may be more information than needed for some situations like non-controversial permit

applications. 24. RCRA Public Participation Manual

• Its length (200+ pages) is intimidating to staff (and this reviewer!), potentially resulting in it gathering dust on your bookshelf.

• Limited applicability to programs that issue short term construction permits whose public notice requirements do not kick in until the DEQ receives a complete permit application.

• Some of the PPT could be applicable to large scale projects (e.g., planned use developments, major highway projects).

30. EAC Recommendations to DEQ

• Citizen Advisory Council: The EAC did not recommend a new advisory council in its document, and listed the following reasons to not have one: • The DEQ Director already has numerous public forums around the State. • No clear need for an additional forum. • A new advisory board is an additional expense in an already tight budget situation. • Role of advisory board in decision-making might not be clear to the public, thereby

creating false expectations about the advisory board’s authority. HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1. Base Information

• Mass mailings can be sent to legislators, county clerks, registers of deeds and county extension offices.

• Public notices can be placed in newspapers, the DEQ calendar and web site, along with links to electronic copies of the maps.

• Detailed directions or maps should be provided so all people can find the meeting location.

2. Part 115 Hearing Process Improvement

• Public service announcements on local TV and radio. • Publication of meeting notice in free shopper newspapers. • Specific targeted mailings to area residents within a certain radius of the proposed

facility.

42

3. DEQ Citizen’s Guide

• The DEQ Calendar. • DEQ Internet pages. • ESSD Hot Line 1-800-662-9278.

DESCRIPTION OF WHICH PPT SHOULD BE USED FOR EACH COMMON CIRCUMSTANCE(S) WHERE THE DEQ, MDA, AND DNR USE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 1. Base Information

• Questions for a panel reply can be read by a moderator. This method is effective in keeping the meeting within the scheduled time, combining like questions, and limiting grandstanding. Prior to the meeting, attendees have a chance to sign in and fill out a card with any questions for the panel. During the project description or meeting topic description speeches the cards can be organized into categories with questions having a common theme. The moderator then will read the questions to the panel and combine similar questions to expedite the process.


• Environmental Justice Areas: • Distribution of written information about project. • Public informational meeting in addition to state held hearing. • Document repository.


• Book lists the following ways the public can get involved: • Know your watershed. • Get information about permits in watershed. • Review and analyze draft permits – the book explains how. • Take action at public hearings and provide comments. • Use legal remedies – following a permit issuance. • Monitoring permit compliance.

11. DEQ and AQD Model Public Hearing Statements • The provided introduction and conclusion statements should be used for each public

meeting. • They should be included or modified for PPT matrix.

13. Texas City Test

• Could be used during public comment period for any document. 14. Evaluating Public Participation in Central Government

• As long as there is room for change in the policy and the results of the engagement will make a difference, it is worth considering public engagement. In other words, we should not undertake public engagement if a decision has already effectively been made and there is no room for change.

43

• Four basic reasons/goals to seek public participation: • Improved governance; democratic legitimacy, accountability, trust, citizen rights and

empowerment. • Social justice. • Improved quality of service, projects, or programs. • Capacity building and building understanding, awareness, and knowledge.

• For major projects, an outline of the public participation goals/objectives should be made. The participation process may have several phases with each phase accomplishing specific goals. This allows for evaluations to be conducted following each phase to determine its effectiveness. The level of influence desired will affect the way objectives are formulated and thus the methods used. For example, increasing levels of influence would be informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, empowering.

• Key Definitions: • Capacity building: “Training and other methods to help people develop the

confidence and skills necessary for them to achieve their purpose” (Wilcox 1994, 31). Community capacity building is defined as: Activities, resources and support that strengthen the skills, abilities and confidence of people and community groups to take effective action and leading roles in the development of their communities.

• Citizens: The wider public/society who may have a right and interest in being involved. Citizenship is a political act, involving people taking responsibility on behalf of the wider society.

• Citizenship education: Citizenship education equips young people and adults with the knowledge, understanding and skills to play an active, effective part in society as informed, critical citizens who are socially and morally responsible. It aims to give them the confidence and conviction that they can act with others, have influence and make a difference in their communities (locally, nationally and globally).

• Civil renewal: The renewal of civil society through the development of strong, active and empowered communities, in which people are able to do things for themselves, define the problems they face, and tackle them in partnership with public bodies. Civil renewal involves three essential elements: active citizenship, strengthened communities and partnership in meeting public needs.

• Community participation or involvement: This is the involvement of people from a given locality or a given section of the local population in public decision making.

• Effective Public Participation: The degree to which the affected public is provided the means to participate/engage in a process which allows the goals of the participation activity to be met.

15. MDOT Statewide Planning Process

• Participation Goal and Objectives: • Solicit public participation in each phase of the statewide planning process. • Seek broad identification and representative involvement of customers and users of

all transportation modes. The diverse characteristics and needs of the customer base require different communication and outreach techniques.

• Utilize effective and equitable avenues for distributing information and receiving comments. Recognize that no single technique or mechanism will work in all cases.

• Provide educational materials and design participation initiatives that will support and encourage effective participation. Staff needs to be well-versed in and employ visualization techniques

that optimize public understanding of issues and concepts.

44

• Maintain and develop staff expertise in all aspects of participation. • Support and encourage continuous improvement in the methods used to meet the

public need for information and involvement. • The Federal regulations related to participation in transportation decision-making can be

found in Title 23; Section 450.212, Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations leave the methods for carrying out participation to the discretion of each state; however, participation processes must provide: • Early and continuous opportunities for involvement. • Public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times. • Timely information on transportation issues, processes and procedures. • Reasonable access to technical and policy information. • Public information easily assessable electronically, via the Web. • Adequate notice of involvement opportunities at key decision points. • Methods for considering and responding to public input. • A course of action for seeking out and considering the needs of traditionally

underserved groups. • Periodic review and evaluation of the participation process.

• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity.” Sites for participation activities, as well as the information presented, must be accessible to persons with disabilities. ADA requires specific participation – particularly for developing para-transit plans – such as: • Outreach by developing contacts, mailing lists, and other means of notification. • Consultation with disabled individuals. • The opportunity for public comment. • Accessible formats. • Public hearings. • Summaries of significant issues identified during the public comment period. • Ongoing efforts to involve persons with disabilities in planning.

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, together with related statutes and regulations, provide that “no person shall on the ground of race, color, and national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal funds.

• Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 1994, states that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Traditionally underserved groups such as low-income and minority populations must be identified and given increased opportunity for involvement in order to ensure effective participation.

• Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 2000, requires that recipients of federal financial aid must ensure that the programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency.

45

WHAT WILL IMPROVE PPT EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPROVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE AGENCIES: 1. Base Information

• Keeping voice mail up to date is important. • Voice mail greeting is important. (Long enough to explain your whereabouts and when

you will return calls, short enough not to annoy). • In order to make citizens feel like they are getting good service from their state

employees, it is imperative that we respond quickly and directly to their inquiries. • Understanding the grieving process helps to empathize/relate with people and their

concerns and knowing how to communicate with them. • Taking time to understand citizen concerns sends a positive message about the

department and often saves time in the long run. • Take time to meet with people and groups on their own turf. Reaching out in this way

can be very effective in building trust. • Communication skills and format of the hearing can significantly influence public

perceptions about the Department. • Efforts could be made within existing statutory requirements to improve the public

hearing process. • Informational Meetings to explain controversial/complex issues are very important to the

public. • Informational Meetings and participation/outreach to the public (citizens, local

government organizations, etc) needs to become a higher priority and occur more frequently/deliberately.

• Giving an agency staff person’s home phone number to the people who have complaints or concerns about a facility, permit, or issue has been an effective mechanism to build trust between those people and the agency.

• The person facilitating the stakeholder meetings needs to do a good job to keep the group on track.

• Often people get frustrated from being passed through several agency staff. Many people are happy just to reach a real person who listens to what they have to say.

• Listening, and trying to be helpful and empathetic, even if you can not solve their problem the way they would like, is key.

• The ones who have talked previously to someone in the state that they consider rude are usually the more hostile callers.

• Some agency publications are beneficial and some are not. They must be geared towards the audience, look nice and be simple to understand to be effective.

• The public often thinks we are in "cahoots" with the regulated community. • It is difficult when the public takes an issue directly to the media, and you learn of a

problem from a reporter on the phone. • The general public seems to have a lack of knowledge of who we are and what we do. • Collaboration tools (including blogs, quasi-social networking areas) provide an

opportunity to reach more of the public and receive more input into state processes. While still a relatively new area for the state of Michigan, the next generation and beyond will be demanding more of these and without supplying it, the public perception of state agencies may erode further.

46


• Copies of Responsiveness Summary should be mailed to anyone requesting a copy of this document at the public hearing.

5. Working Effectively with Angry Citizens

• Promise only what you can deliver; deliver everything you promise. Evaluate what you can do.

• Avoid using waffle words like: basically, pretty much, and kind of. • If you do not know, say so, but state how you are going to find the answer and when or

where and how the audience can find the information or answer. • Borrow the credibility of neutral experts. • Give honest answers and do not hide behind the agency. • Accept the members of the public as active partners. • Stay open to new ideas or information. • Be aware of your non-verbal communications. For example open up to receive the

communication from the public by facing them, looking at them, and with hands down. • Use empathetic listening. • Simplify the information, but do not dilute it.

6. EPA Public Involvement Course

• Treat the public as boss. Know that we are public servants and show it. Give public the same thought consideration and respect that you would give when briefing the department Director or the Governor.


• The EPA work group made the following recommendations: • Revise the 1981 policy to reflect additional statutes, technological changes, and

procedural advances since 1981. o Have the EPA Administrator issue a draft version of the policy for comment, and

send a memo to staff reaffirming the importance of the new policy, and other statutory and regulatory public participation requirements.

• Enhance the EPA’s regulatory agenda as posted on the web site, explore ways to make it a better tool for public participation, provide an internet gateway to public participation information, and develop tools to help overcome barriers to the use of computer technology in under-served communities.

• Develop database and list tools. • Issue and promote the “Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A Reference

Guide”, and “Better Decisions through Consultation and Collaboration Manual”. Provide and promote training to support them and to better prepare communities to participate in environmental decision making.

• The Administrator should charge the Reinvention Action Council, through a cross-agency work group to develop a strategic plan in 2001.


• If the public is unhappy with the way an exercise was run, they will have less confidence in the government. By evaluating the results, the agency can improve public participation opportunities, thereby increasing their confidence in the government.

47


• Book explains DEQ public hearing process. • Includes an entire page on tips about how to make effective public comment.

11. DEQ and AQD Model Public Hearing Statements • Add department-wide model information meeting statements as AQD has done. • Use in conjunction the informational and public meeting at one event. • Keep language simple. • Explain about what we can and cannot base our decisions on may help improve

effectiveness. 12. EPA Workshop for DEQ

• Give the public the same thought and consideration you would give when briefing the director.

• You have to be seen as open and empathetic before they will trust your knowledge. • Let people know what you can and can not do right up front. • Be prepared. Have an agenda and a clear message, but be flexible. • Use follow-up evaluations to see how good we did. • Communicate early and often. If you can not share the data, share the process. • Do not confuse people’s understanding of a risk with their acceptance of it. Silence does

not equal acceptance. • Have pre-meeting staff sessions and post-meeting follow-up evaluations. • Spend adequate time properly preparing for the hearing. • Find ways to combine efforts of divisions/departments to stretch resources (combined

training, shared informational materials, etc). 14. Evaluating Public Participation in Central Government

• Conducting post event evaluations to determine success of efforts and improve future efforts.

• Providing timely, balanced, and objective information on the problem, alternatives considered, and solutions reached. This could be done as part of an informational meeting format.

• Provide timely and objective feedback to comments and questions received. 15. MDOT Statewide Planning Process

• Conducting post event evaluations to determine success of efforts and improve future efforts.

• When the array of participants fairly represents all user groups and the community at large, an outreach strategy could be declared most effective; however, public outreach professionals would agree that this ideal level of participation is very difficult to achieve.

• Providing timely, balanced, and objective information on the problem, alternatives considered, and solutions reached.

• This could be done as part of an informational meeting format. • Provide timely and objective feedback to comments and questions received.

48

30. EAC Recommendations to DEQ

• According to the EAC, effective involvement only occurs when the public understands and has a meaningful role in shaping decisions. Basic principles include: • Decision-making process should foster fairness and understanding. • Decision-making process should be transparent. • Decision-maker should be readily identifiable before decision is made. • Decisions should be based on technical merits of a proposal and criteria established

by law. • Public should be able to contribute to a decision on a proposed program or activity

that may affect their quality of life. • Consistent with law, the public should have access to information and the evaluation

of information involved in a decision. • The DEQ should be able to explain its decision and how relevant comments were

considered. • Recommendations to further the DEQ efforts to foster openness between the agency

and the public: • The DEQ should enhance efforts to train staff on working with the public. • The DEQ management should better encourage staff participation in work-related

professional organizations. • The DEQ management should encourage staff to participate in environmental

projects in their communities. • The DEQ management should invest in developing staff awareness that multiple

perspectives on a decision are valuable. • The DEQ management should encourage leadership training for staff. • Individual programs within the DEQ should evaluate their decision-making process

and identify earlier opportunities for public involvement. • The DEQ should provide notification of pending issues early enough for meaningful

public input. • The DEQ should use multiple approaches for public involvement. • The DEQ should enhance communication efforts with local units of government. • The DEQ should make its web page more user-friendly. • The DEQ should make sure that no one segment of the public has preferential

access to information over another segment. • The DEQ should inform affected public of findings and rationale behind decisions. • The DEQ should develop and implement a process for notifying public of contested

cases and proposed settlements in contested cases. 33. EPA’s Public Involvement Policy

• Goals that the EPA strives to include: • Involve the public early and often in the process. • Identify, communicate with, and listen to affected sectors of the public. • Involve public in developing options and alternatives when possible, before decisions

are made. • Use public input to facilitate resolution to differing points of view.

• Identifies 7 steps for effective public involvement activities: • Plan and budget for public involvement activities.

49

• Identify interested and affected people. • Consider providing technical and fiscal assistance to the public to facilitate

involvement. • Provide information and outreach. • Conduct public consultation and involvement activities. • Review and use input and provide feedback to the public. • Evaluate public involvement activities.

PUBLIC HEARING OUTREACH STRATEGY: 1. Base Information

• Use an interactive format prior to the formal public hearing where a presentation by staff or the applicant would describe the proposed permit or issue and questions could be answered. This presentation and interaction can reduce confusion and comments that are based on misinformation. This also has resulted in more meaningful comments by the public during the formal hearings.

• DEQ Staff Interactions. • Our body language can send the wrong message. • It helps to interact with the public before and after the meeting or hearing by talking

to them and answering questions. • In some cases the DEQ staff has a professional relationship with the applicant and

work with the people from a facility on a regular basis to address operational issues. The staff may not know the people from the public who are attending the meeting or hearing. It is natural to stand with and talk to the people who we know, especially if the DEQ staff feels uneasy about the animosity that the people from the public may be holding regarding the situation. As a result, if staff is seen shaking hands with, talking to, and even joking with the employees, operators, or owners of the facility at issue, this sends a body language message to the public that the DEQ is aligning with the facility and not with the public. This is especially true if the DEQ staff is not interacting with the public. People from the public may even take this to the next level and make the assumption that the DEQ employees are corrupt in some manner.

• We need to physically show by our actions that we are impartial and will consider the opinions and information from all parties related to the issues.

• Listening techniques and body language. • The DEQ staff should listen intently to the people from the public who are speaking

or asking questions. • The staff should listen and maybe take notes. • When staff are shuffling through papers or whispering to each other to find an

answer while the person is still speaking sends a message that you are not really hearing them. I have seen people become obviously upset with this activity and even stop talking while wondering if they are being heard.

• People do not get the five minute hearing statement read at the beginning of the public hearing by the hearing officer, especially the specific section citations. The LWMD staff suggests making the statement more general. Perhaps provide handouts ahead of time describing the permit review criteria.

50


• Avoid setting hearing or information meeting dates that conflict with important community events or meetings that are regularly held.

• Hold meeting in a location that is familiar to residents, easily accessible for handicapped, has plenty of parking, and is large enough.

• Provide at least three weeks notice for meeting. 11. DEQ and AQD Model Public Hearing Statements

• Formal public hearings as prescribed by law. 12. EPA Workshop for DEQ

• Identify and designate a community liaison. • Keep it simple. People tend to gravitate towards simple falsehoods over complex truths. • Utilize visual aids to present information. • Validate/acknowledge people’s frustrations.

STEP BY STEP GUIDE REGARDING HOW BEST TO COMMUNICATE WITH LOCAL CITIZENS AND LEADERS ON A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT: 1. Base Information

• Do not be afraid to admit when you do not understand something. It is better to admit that you do not have the answer, and will seek the correct information, rather than bluffing/stumbling through a conversation.

• Though we share similar concerns with some environmental organizations, their primary goal may be quite different than the DEQ. Communication with these groups needs to recognize and work within the areas in which we have common ground and accept/respect those areas in which we differ.

• On very controversial projects where for some reason some members of the public do not trust the DEQ, it helps to meet with those most vocal people on their own turf. Meeting in the living room of the most vocal complainant with that person’s close supporters, usually shows them an intention by the DEQ to work on their behalf to address their concerns. This is a very effective way to build trust between the DEQ staff and the concerned public.

• We have to remember to speak to our audience in a language they can understand. Scientific terms and acronyms are common and necessary in our daily conversations, but we lose the battle when they do not understand what we are saying.


• Prepare a fact sheet after staff have performed the administrative complete check of a permit application.

• Offer a pre-hearing meeting to local government officials shortly after an application is administratively complete to provide information regarding the application and a copy of the fact sheet. This would allow local officials to disseminate information such as the fact sheet to the public.

51

5. Working Effectively with Angry Citizens

• Start the meeting on time. • Consider use of a neutral moderator who will handle angry speakers and timekeeping. • Take questions and comments from speaker cards. • Set a time limit for questions and answers. • Limit questions to the meeting topic. • Use active listening and restatement to clarify questions. • For non-related questions, indicate options for follow-up. • Let the meeting run until all comments and questions have been heard. • Be aware of your non-verbal communications. • Maintain a professional attitude and show concern.


• Establish a contact list by reaching out to neighborhood groups, community boards, community leaders, elected officials, municipal clerks and other appropriate local government staff, public works departments, and local media.

• Ensure that written materials are readily available and located at highly visible areas in the community, and directly mailed to stakeholders.


• Send mass mailing of brochures/fact sheets in addition to contacting required media. • Provide more outreach and communication, not just when mandated by rule.

31. Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation at the USEPA. Lessons Learned,

Barriers, and Innovative Approaches. Jan. 2001 • Keys to successful participation include:

• Establishing trust is integral. • Credible data and technical assistance can be critical. • Recognize links between environmental, economic, and social concerns. • Agency staff receive training or expert assistance in the value and use of

these participation activities and learn how to use them properly. • Barriers to successful participation include:

• Inadequate explanations of background and technical data. • Difficulty in participating in technical discussions. • Inadequate minutes from meetings. • Overwhelming amounts of reading. • Perceived inability to influence issues. • Lack of time to participate.

52

CHECKLIST OR TOOLS OF ALL THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC HEARINGS OR MEETINGS: 1. Base Information

• Use an interaction format prior to the formal public hearing where a presentation by staff or the applicant would describe the proposed permit or issue and questions could be answered.

• Hand out ground rules to people before the meeting. 4. DLEG Accessible Meeting Planning

• Inform invitees that their differing requirements will be accommodated. • If there is a registration form, structure it to elicit the needs of the invitees. • Consider accessibility through parking, entrances, doorways, corridors, restrooms, and

meeting rooms. • If necessary, large print for presentations may be necessary or an audio system to

enhance the volume may be required. • Front row seating may be required to allow better participation for blind or deaf people. • Qualified interpreter services are available if needed. • For a more detailed list of specific accessibility requirements, see the Michigan

Department of Labor and Economic Growth. 5. Working Effectively with Angry Citizens

• Anticipate the audience concerns with the following: • Review any related news clippings. • Review the file for letters or phone calls from citizens or local officials. • Network with the other staff and other divisions or agencies. • Network with local officials. • Make informational calls to key citizens to determine their main concerns.

• The location must be handicapper accessible following the Department of Labor and Economic Growth guidelines.

• Include persons with special needs in the announcement. • Avoid Mondays and Fridays. Watch out for Holidays. • Match meeting room to expected audience. Avoid gymnasiums, churches, and political

locations. • If possible, avoid set-ups that put staff above the audience. • Make sure facility has needed equipment such as mikes, tables, easels, and projections

equipment. • Meet with the facility contact person and visit the facility before the meeting. • Obtain names and phone numbers for after hour emergencies or facility problems. • Determine security needs. • Review the expected audience and purpose of the meeting. • Review the information to be presented. • Choose appropriate presenters. • An option is to hold preparatory meetings to complete the following:

• Decide on the meeting format and finalize the agenda. • Decide which staff will attend and what they will do. • Decide seating arrangements, logistics, graphics and handouts. • Designate presenters to answer questions by topic area.

53

• Anticipate questions and practice answers. • Presenters should share any new information. • Decide who will record meeting and or citizens’ questions for follow-up. • Get presenters’ correct names and titles for moderator and handouts.

• The night of the hearing or meeting: • Give yourself plenty of time before the meeting starts. • Hold a brief staff meeting for final planning. • Review seating arrangements for presenters and special guests. • Do a check to make sure visuals are easily seen, sound system is adequate, and

equipment works. • Set up table for hand-outs, sign-in sheets, speaker cards, and documents for public

review. • Post directional signs from all open entrances to the meeting room and from the

parking area if necessary. • Designate media area, if necessary.

• Presentations: • Practice before the meeting using the visual aids. • Moderator welcomes audience and explains meeting format and ground rules. • Try to limit presentations to 15 minutes; 10 minutes is ideal. • Consider the audience and their real interests. • Maintain eye contact with the audience. • Maintain a professional attitude and project your concern. • To help the audience, refer directly to maps or other handouts, when appropriate.

• Handouts should include: • Agenda. • Meeting format information. • Issue background. • Summaries. • Maps. • Consider providing copies of overheads or make them available on the internet. • Check all handouts for readability, acronyms, and accuracy. • Bring extra handouts.

• Visuals: • Scale visuals projection screen to audience size. • Visuals must be clear, clean, readable, and bright enough to use with the room lights

on. • Visuals should match the version in the handouts. • Mark key locations in different colors or shading (bodies of water, facility

appurtenances such as landfill cells, property lines, etc.). • If visuals are on easels then use two sets of visuals for a large room or audience.

• Conclusion of the hearing or meeting: • Outline what is next in the process. Give a timeline. • Review additional actions (Repository, citizens committee, permit review, water

testing, etc.) • Invite audience to contact staff at the office. • Thank the audience and the meeting participants. • Announce that staff will stay after the meeting for follow-up questions.

54

• Leave the visuals up until everyone has gone. • Give business cards to interested citizens, local officials, and media. • Offer personal thanks to citizens, officials, and media you have worked with. • Avoid the “cast party” syndrome. You represent the agency until the last person has

gone home. • Post-meeting/hearing evaluation and follow-up:

• Review the meeting while your memory is fresh: what worked, what did not. • Follow-up with all outstanding meeting questions. • Write thank-you letters to participants. • Add names from sign-in sheets or cards to mailing list. • File speaker cards for future reference. • Make follow-up calls to media.

6. EPA Public Involvement Course

• Communication and Public involvement: • Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. The goal is to produce an

informed public that is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative.

o Involve the community early. o Involve all parties that have an interest or stake in the issue. o Remember, you work for the public.

• Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. • Begin with clear, explicit objectives. • Evaluate the information you have about the issues and know its strengths and

weaknesses. • Identify and address the particular interests of different groups. • Obtain training in communication skills. • Practice and test your messages. • Evaluate your efforts and learn from your mistakes. • Listen to the public’s specific concerns. If you do not listen to the people, you cannot

expect them to listen to you. Communication is a two-way street. People are often more concerned about trust, credibility, competence, control, voluntariness, fairness, caring, and compassion than morality, statistics, or quantitative evaluations.

• Do not make assumptions about what people know, think, or want done; take the time to find out what people are thinking.

• Let all parties with an interest in the issue be heard. • Identify with your audience; put yourself in their place and recognize their emotions. • Be honest, frank, and open. Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once lost,

they are almost impossible to regain completely. • State your credentials, but do not ask or expect to be trusted. • If you do not know an answer or are uncertain, say so; get back to people with

answers, admit mistakes. • Disclose risk information or controversial information as soon as possible. • Do not minimize or exaggerate the level of risk. • Lean toward sharing more information, not less so that people do not get the

impression that you are hiding something. • Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. Few things make

communication more difficult than conflicts or public disagreements with other credible sources.

55

• Take time to coordinate with other organizations or groups. • Devote effort and resources to the slow, hard work of building bridges with other

organizations. • Try to issue communications jointly with other credible sources. • Meet the needs of the media. The media are frequently more interested in politics

than in the technical issues; more interested in simplicity than in complexity; more interested in danger than in safety.

• Be open with and accessible to reporters; respect their deadlines. • Provide risk information tailored to the needs of each type of media. • Prepare in advance and provide background material on complex issues. • Do not hesitate to follow up on stories with praise or criticism. • Try to establish long-term relationships of trust with specific editors and reporters. • Speak clearly and with compassion. Technical language and jargon are barriers to

successful communication with the public. Always try to include a discussion of actions that are underway or that can be taken. Tell people what you cannot do. Promise only what you can do, and be sure to do what you promise.

• Be sensitive to norms, such as speech and dress. • Use simple, non-technical language. • Use vivid, concrete images that communicate on a personal level; use examples and

anecdotes that make technical data come alive. • Use comparisons to help put technical information into perspective; but avoid

comparisons that ignore distinctions that people consider important. • Acknowledge and respond, both in words and with actions, to emotions that people

express such as anxiety, fear, anger, outrage, helplessness. • Managing expectations: Let people know what can and cannot be negotiated right

up front. Do not try to negotiate with people who are angry or in denial. Giving people choices empowers them.

• Be prepared for a public meeting by having an agenda and a clear message, but be flexible. Your first public meeting may be nothing more than a listening session. Schedule breaks in the agenda and use them to network one on one.

• Communicate early and often. There is no need to wait until you have all the answers. If you cannot share the data, then share the process related to the data.

• Do not confuse people’s lack of understanding of the technical issues with their acceptance of them. Silence does not equal acceptance.

• Crisis communication, leading effectively to bring out the best in people: • Build trusting relationships. • Acknowledge people’s views. • Give the facts. • Negotiate solutions or give options.


• At the beginning of a meeting, review the agenda and invite attendees to set and agree upon meeting ground rules.

• Let attendees know how they can participate and allow for comment/question periods as time allows.

• Let attendees know where they can obtain answers to questions they may have after the meeting has concluded.

• Use a neutral facilitator.

56


• From the nine criteria, questions were developed to assess whether members of the public thought the exercise was effective or not. The result was a toolkit which includes three measurement instruments designed to evaluate the participation process.


• Buy-in from management to let staff invest time in preparing for hearings. • Include informational meetings in conjunction with hearings. • Ensure the right support staff and managers attend the meetings.

14. Evaluating Public Participation in Central Government

• A number of tools were suggested for assessing the benefits and achievements of public participation events. These tools were based on the goals of the event. Tools included surveys, demographic analysis of participants, questionnaires and interviews.

15. MDOT Statewide Planning Process

• The MDOT will employ a variety of techniques to invite and encourage public participation in decision-making. Some of these techniques are: • Enlisting the aid of community leaders. • Community advisory committees. • Collaborative task forces. • Mailing lists. • Key person interviews. • Public information materials. • Briefings. • Several public meeting styles. • Video techniques. • Internet use. • Media strategies. • Telephone techniques. • Speakers' bureaus.

• This document contains an example Participation Survey. • Public Information Materials

• Public information materials provide information about a transportation investment that is under way or in the planning stage. Other media, such as video, can be used, but these materials are still usually printed. A sample range of public information materials includes:

57

Billboards Brochures Display advertisements Display boards Electronic media Fact sheets Fliers Grocery bag inserts Legal notices News articles

Newsletters Newspaper inserts and articles Notices On-line home page Posters Press releases Progress bulletins Slides and overheads Summaries of reports Videotapes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFF TRAINING NEEDS FOR BETTER PPT: 1. Base Information

• Communication skills. 7. EPA Public Policy Review Work Group

• Build public participation skills in staff, co-regulators, and stakeholders through training, greater access to and wider distribution of existing and new materials on public participation and decision making.


• Instructions are included in the toolkit on how to use the tools and analyze the results. The kit also contains discs with templates of the evaluation instruments.


• Staff need access and use of the templates. 12. EPA Workshop for DEQ

• Continuing education for staff who interact with the public. • Training for new employees. • Add training or continuing education in public outreach as an objective in annual

performance goals. • Attend other public hearings as observers, for training purposes.

13. Texas City Test

• Full day of training for staff that review public comments. 14. Evaluating Public Participation in Central Government

• Improved reputation, trust, legitimacy; active citizenship; accountability; social justice; raised awareness.

58

TEAM MEMEBERS’ SUCCESS STORIES WITH PPT: When I first started in the DNR there was an activist group who did not trust a nearby facility or the DNR. They were convinced that certain DNR employees were corrupt. The correspondence file between this group and the DNR was unusually large and full of complaints and accusations by the activist group, and frustrating responses by the DNR staff. I met the leader of that group and his closest supporters in his dining room. I agreed with some of their points and did not agree with other points. I gave them my home phone number and told them to call me any time if they saw evidence of illegal activity at the facility. I informed them that the evidence did not support the accusations of corruption. However, I looked them in the eye and told them that I would look into the corruption accusations. The action on that day ended years of back and forth feud-like correspondence between this group of activists and the DNR. The correspondence and interaction with the group was meaningful and professional from that point forward, because they trusted me. Shoreline maintenance general permit meetings: The LWMD held three public meetings on the shoreline maintenance ("beach grooming") general permit, two in the Saginaw Bay region and one in Traverse City. These meetings were very labor intensive. Six or seven LWMD staff were set up at tables around the room with the permit paperwork to talk to people one on one and answer their questions. People were advised to bring photos of their property. Staff started out by asking people to describe their situation and state what they wanted. Then staff told them what actions they could take under the general permit. A couple of people came to protest, but most left happier to have been heard by the DEQ staff. The press release said the event would run from 2:00 to 7:00 PM. Many people came right at the beginning or stayed away because they did not want to spend five hours at this event. One improvement that can be made is to call such an event an open house to make it clear that people can just come whenever they want during that period and get their questions answered. A Local Township Meeting: The setting: A public meeting at a local township where the residents were being asked to decide if they wanted to support a state-funded public water supply extension into their neighborhood where the ground water was contaminated. The action: After the state agency staff and the project design engineers made presentations and answered a few specific questions, the township supervisor allowed everyone at the meeting to speak – but each person was allowed to only speak once. The supervisor went around the room seat-by-seat, row-by-row asking each person if they had something they wanted to say. If they declined, he moved to the next person. No one was allowed to interrupt when someone else was speaking, and no one was allowed to speak a second time. The township supervisor explained the “ground rules” up front, and it seemed that everyone in the audience accepted the rules. When one individual tried to interrupt someone and begin an individual debate, the supervisor quickly cut them off and simply would not allow it. After everyone had a chance to speak, the supervisor called for yea or nay vote. The Positive: All attendees felt like they had an opportunity to express themselves and the process was very orderly. I was asked to come and speak to a home owner's association at a community where we were having major issues with the water supply. I explained what was happening, and gave the residents the chance to ask questions. It seemed to be beneficial, and could be a forum for getting our message across. We just have not had the time to develop these kinds of opportunities.

59

EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMATIC PPT SCENARIOS: Critical Dune Area Stakeholders Meetings (Part 353): These stakeholder meetings were judged to be a failure by one LWMD staff person who was a participant. The stakeholder group had a diverse membership (LWMD staff, realtors, architect, conservation districts, local governments, DNR Parks, conservation and environmental groups, consultants, attorneys, utilities, builders and academia). The LWMD staff person felt that this range of interests was too broad to be able to reach consensus. The person facilitating the stakeholder meetings needs to do a good job to keep the group on track. The group formed subcommittees to deal with specific issues. The group took much longer than expected to conclude its work. Wetland Identification Program Rule Amendment Hearings (Part 303): This process is dictated by the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (SOAHR). This process was ineffective. Notices were placed in newspapers, the Michigan Register, the DEQ calendar and web site. The hearing was scheduled in a small conference room in the back of the 3rd floor of the State Library in Michigan. The LWMD staff had a hard time locating the conference room, so it is no surprise that nobody from the public showed up. The only non-LWMD person who showed up was from the SOAHR. The moderator was ineffective at setting ground rules or controlling the Saginaw Bay Coastal Initiative "muck meeting”. The moderator sent the microphone around in the audience and people started grandstanding and DEQ bashing. People complained about specific DEQ staff by name. The moderator did not defend the DEQ staff and made comments like "we work for you", which just contributed to the chaos. The moderator lost control of the meeting. Audience members started clapping after some of the negative comments, which intimidated anyone with an opposing opinion from speaking. Afterward, the LWMD staff suggested following the RRD lead with their monthly Dow meetings where they hand out ground rules to people before the meeting. Groundwater Cleanup Meeting (Part 201): A public meeting regarding a potential groundwater cleanup project was scheduled to be chaired by the township supervisor, but she deferred to the DNR-ERD staff. Staff was not prepared to run the meeting; they were only prepared to present the information. Consequently, procedures for ensuring a satisfactory public input phase were not in place. The people were upset to begin with because they believed we were going to pick on their friends, make them pay the entire costs, and eventually run them into bankruptcy. To make things even worse, the state representative for the area at the time high-jacked the meeting by taking over early in the proceedings, making a politically charged speech, and vilifying the then DNR environmental staff folks. Mining Permit Hearing (Part 632): A rule-required public information meeting for a proposed new Part 632 mining permit was set up with tables where staff people could answer questions for a period of time before the formal meeting. The room also had rows of seats and a microphone for public discourse when the more formal portion of the meeting started. While some people took advantage of the opportunity to have on-on-one discourse with staff, most folks misunderstood what was happening and just took seats and waited for the formal session to start. By the time the formal session actually started, many people had been sitting for up to an hour. The applicant also had a staffed display table in the room, which created tension, since most meeting attendees were speaking against the proposed permit action.

60

The Positive: The idea was good; the implementation was poor. The Negative: Pre-meeting information did not explain how the meeting would proceed, nor did the signs around the site adequately explain the purpose and what the public could expect to achieve with the meeting. When the formal part started, it morphed into a public-comment meeting instead of a question and answer type meeting. The way the room was set up with a raised dais and the DEQ staff sitting behind a table with rows of attendees and a microphone in the room gave the mistaken impression that the meeting was a public comment meeting. Consequently, that is what it became. A meaningful discourse was not possible with this type of setting.

61

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

for

SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF DEQ/DNR/MDA

62

LEADERSHIP ACADEMY – ACTION LEARNING TEAM EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION QUESTIONAIRRE

1. What is your vision of an effective public participation program? 2. To what extent do you feel the public’s perception of your agency is related to your agency’s public participation program?

3. What specific outcomes would you like to see from an effective public participation program? 4. Based upon feedback that you have received from external parties, what areas of improvement are needed to achieve effective public participation? 5. Can you identify three to five specific actions you would ask your managers and supervisors to implement to improve the effectiveness of your department’s public participation program? 6. Can you identify three to five specific actions you would ask individual staff to do to help implement an effective public participation program?

63

APPENDIX E

SURVEY FORM

and

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES

64

Questionnaire for Feedback on the Effectiveness of Formal PPT

Background: This questionnaire has been developed for a team project for the Michigan DEQ/MDA/DNR Leadership Academy, for the purpose of identifying ways in which the public is or could be involved in government processes, and to test and recommend effective PPT. This project is focusing strictly on PPT related to controversial, large and complex, or rule making hearings. Team members will use this information to better understand what is working well, and what improvements could be made to future public hearings. Thanks in advance for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire. We value your input! Directions: Considering a recent high profile, controversial, or rule making Public Hearing for your program, rate the following statements on a scale of 1 – 6. You may write your opinions in the space below each question. If you have no opinion, circle #7 for “don’t know”. The registration process is efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Describe how attendees are registered: Comments: Participants understand the purpose of the hearing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: Participants understand how the hearing will be conducted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: Participants understand the review criteria set 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forth in statute and/or rules for the project/rules. Comments: The format gives all ample opportunity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to be heard. Comments: There is courteous interaction between speakers and hearing officers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: There is courteous interaction between the speakers representing differing opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: There is a good mix of viewpoints. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: The hosting agency gains new, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 clarifying information that will help it develop, revise, or implement rules or programs. Comments: The public hearing process is successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments:

agree Strongly agree

Some-what agree

Some-what

disagree

disagree Strongly disagree

Don’t know

65

Please explain your ranking of the previous statement about success.___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Considering this same public hearing: Did you hold an informational session in addition to the formal public hearing? YES NO If yes, was it beneficial? YES NO NO OPINION If no, would such a session have been helpful in communicating the issues with the public? YES NO NO OPINION Were representatives of the permit requester present (if applicable)? YES NO If yes, was this a positive or negative influence on the proceedings? POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL Was an elected governmental official present? LOCAL STATE NONE Please suggest how your agency can improve its next public hearing.____________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Please tell us which department/division/agency/program that you are representing, and the type of public hearing you are describing:_______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Please share any relevant standard documents (i.e., Notice of Hearing, Hearing Officer's Opening Statements, Comment Cards, Response to Comment documents, etc.), and/or list any reference material that you would recommend related to this topic:____________________________________________________________________________________

Please return your completed questionnaire to the team member who forwarded it to you, by July 1, 2008.

The PPT team members are Larry Bean, Scott Miller, Jim Milne,

Debbie Smith Ostrander, Brad Pagratis, Chuck Thomas, and Bob Wagner.

Team Sponsors: JoAnn Merrick and Bryce Feighner

Thank you again for your participation!

66

Summary of Survey Responses

Questionnaire for Feedback on the Effectiveness of Formal PPT

Background: This questionnaire has been developed for a team project for the Michigan DEQ/MDA/DNR Leadership Academy, for the purpose of identifying ways in which the public is or could be involved in government processes, and to test and recommend effective PPT. This project is focusing strictly on PPT related to controversial, large and complex, or rule making hearings. Team members will use this information to better understand what is working well, and what improvements could be made to future public hearings. Thanks in advance for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire. We value your input! Directions: Considering a recent high profile, controversial, or rule making Public Hearing for your program, rate the following statements on a scale of 1 – 6. You may write your opinions in the space below each question. If you have no opinion, circle #7 for “don’t know”. TOTALS: 13 32 53 96 187 122 18 The registration process is efficient. 1 9 20 15 4 Participants understand the purpose of the hearing. 1 2 8 7 20 14 Participants understand how the hearing will be conducted. 1 1 4 7 27 12 1 Participants understand the review criteria set 3 12 8 16 7 5 2 forth in statute and/or rules for the project/rules. The format gives all ample opportunity 3 1 20 29 to be heard. There is courteous interaction between speakers and hearing officers. 2 2 5 24 18 1 There is courteous interaction between the speakers representing differing opinions. 3 3 11 24 9 2 There is a good mix of viewpoints. 2 4 6 14 20 3 3 The hosting agency gains new, or 2 5 10 15 12 5 3 clarifying information that will help it develop, revise, or implement rules or programs. The public hearing process is successful. 3 3 9 11 13 12 2 Considering this same public hearing: Did you hold an informational session in addition to the formal public hearing? 35 - YES 11 - NO

Agree Strongly agree

Some-what agree

Some-what

disagree


Don’t know

67

If yes, was it beneficial? 33 - YES 2 - NO 6 - NO OPINION If no, would such a session have been helpful in communicating the issues with the public? 11 - YES 1 - NO 6 - NO OPINION Were representatives of the permit requester present (if applicable)? 38 - YES 3 - NO 6 - DON’T KNOW If yes, was this a positive or negative influence on the proceedings? 13 - POSITIVE 3 - NEGATIVE 25 - NEUTRAL Was an elected governmental official present? 34 - LOCAL 22 - STATE 5 - NONE 9 - DON’T KNOW

68

Questionnaire for Feedback on the Effectiveness of Formal PPT – (continued).

LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

The registration process is efficient. Describe how attendees are registered: Comments:

1. Attendees asked to complete a card. 2. E-mail and maybe web site. 3. Was pre-enrolled – sign in, etc. was very brief. 4. Attendees fill out card when entering – can become congested. 5. Sign-in sheet. 6. Cards are handed out at the door. Most fill them out, some likely do not. 7. We have folks fill out a card and indicate whether they’d like to speak or not. 8. Participant Cards are distributed which include name, address, affiliation, if they wish to speak, and if they

are supporting or opposing the rule. 9. By 3 x 5 cards at the door. 10. Attendees are asked to register upon entering the hearing location. 11. Attendees wishing to provide input are asked to fill out a card prior to the start of the hearing. However,

attendees not wishing to speak are not otherwise tracked. 12. Registration available on line prior to the meeting and at the door. Registration could not be required

because of the Open Meetings Act. 13. Sign-in table. 14. Attendees are registered on a first-come, first serve basis. This occasionally leads to confusion in cases

when people from one “side” of an issue arrive early to register first. 15. Not applicable, no registration. 16. ESSD staff does a good job setting up public meetings, conferences, etc. 17. Initially, the link sent out didn’t work. It was remedied in a timely manner. 18. Ideally, we would like to have a record of all attendees; however, some may not want their name recorded,

and the cards or attendee lists are subject to FOIA. 19. Provided attention is paid by staff to greet and inform people when they arrive. 20. The public registered as they came in at the hearing location. It is very important to have enough table

space, pens, registration cards, info packets, and people to greet and ask the public to complete an attendance card. It is also important to explain why the attendance cards are used.

21. Seems to work OK, sometimes a line will form but cards can be distributed to those in line for faster processing.

22. There was no registration process for this meeting as it was just an informational meeting and not a formal hearing.

23. NA there was not registration process. Nor were there any DEQ or Corps staff greeting people as they came in.

24. Attendance cards and pencils were provided at the door to the room where the hearing was held. 25. It is important to plan ahead to have registration set up early, and to ensure the people assisting with

registration are friendly and calming so as to not stir attendees up. 26. Individuals register at the door and encouraged to provide written and/or spoken comments. In the case of a

hearing or major milestone meeting where spoken public comments are encouraged, attendees are given a speaker ID form to complete before being called on to speak. Mailing lists are kept and updated throughout the process and used to promote attendance at subsequent meetings and hearings.

27. As people enter the location, they are asked to fill out a card with their name and address. Also on the card is a box to check yes or no indicating whether or not they would like to speak during the hearing. This allows for DEQ staff to personally welcome the individuals to the hearing. It is important to make sure there is sufficient room for completing the cards.

28. RRD does public meetings (not hearings) so our comments come from that perspective. Regarding registration, as attendees enter the building and approach the registration desk, there is a sign-in sheet that all are asked to sign. The sign-in sheet asks for the following information: name, mail address, email address, and whether they want to speak. An asterisk by the last item directs them to a footnote that reads: “please fill out a 3 x 5 card at this table if you wish to speak, or see other comment options at back of agenda.”

69

Participants understand the purpose of the hearing. Comments:

1. They may know about the topic, but not how their comments will be used in making the decision. Attendees too often think that public objection is a valid criteria in the decision-making process.

2. Many of the participants had the misconception that a final decision would be made at the hearing. 3. More up-front and clear media coverage would help. 4. Most clearly understand, but there are always one or two that use the opportunity to speak about their own,

often unrelated issues. 5. Folks are often confused regarding the purpose of the meeting/hearing. 6. They often think we regulate much more than we actually do. 7. The purpose was pretty straight forward, so I assume participants understood the purpose. 8. While the purpose of the hearing is made clear, many attendees have incomplete or mistaken

understandings about the extent to which their comments may impact an agency decision. 9. We explain it, not sure if they get it. 10. this was an AQD informational meeting, not a hearing, and that was clearly conveyed to the audience. 11. Often the general public does not understand the purpose of a hearing or public meeting. The DEQ needs to

do a better job of educating the public on the process. 12. Brief presentation at start. 13. In some cases, participants do not understand the limitations on our agency and board in conducting the

hearing. They expect action that is beyond our authority (e.g., killing a project simply because of public opposition).

14. Somewhat, there were previous meetings. 15. The introduction and initial power point slides explained the purpose of the meeting quite well. 16. Objectives were clearly identified and communicated. 17. The purpose was explained at the beginning of the hearing by the moderator; however, many participants did

not pay attention or simply chose to ignore the explanations. 18. All to often citizens attending a public hearing appear to regard it as a referendum or plebiscite on the project

under consideration and behave as though loud and vigorous opposition will lead to DEQ not granting permits, approvals or whatever is necessary for the project to continue.

19. This should be made clear at the beginning however it won’t help if there are related issues that people won’t be given time to comment on.

20. Understanding the purpose of the hearing is highly dependant on the quality of the public notice. It needs to be understood by the masses. If the public hearing notice is in legalese then having an informational packet of easily understood language and concepts to provide the public will be helpful.

21. Not a problem. 22. I think everyone there understood that the purpose of the meeting was to answer any questions that they had

on the proposed project. That was stated at the beginning of the meeting. 23. I didn’t think the purpose of the meeting (not a hearing) was well explained on the DEQ website but it was

explained at the beginning of the meeting. 24. The hearing officer read the hearing statement at the beginning of the hearing but it contains too much

detailed information for people unfamiliar with our regulatory programs to comprehend. Several people came in late because a local newspaper and an email from a riparian owners group said the hearing started at 7:30 not 7:00 as stated in the public hearing notice that DEQ sent to the local papers and other interested parties. This misinformation is outside of DEQ's control.

25. The participants did not understand the factors that the DEQ will be using to evaluate if the permit should be issued as proposed, revised, or denied. The participants were under the impression that conditions on the lake, such as over-crowding, etc would be evaluated in the decision making process. This information was not discussed until after the hearing closed and the DEQ took questions from the audience.

26. In the opening comments, it is important for the hearings officer to explain why the hearing is being conducted and what will happen to the information presented/gathered.

27. Everyone is welcomed at the registration table, where the meeting format and purpose are explained. Since participants come with varying agendas, it’s questionable whether all fully understand the purpose of the hearing and the overarching public involvement process. Many have their own agenda and are not interested in the process, just stating their opinion or preventing a project from occurring in their backyard. Also, those who have been involved all along understand. Those who have just learned or decided to get involved are less likely to.

70

28. The general public understands that the hearing is an opportunity to collect their comments regarding a specific project. However, they typically do not understand the law, the role of the DEQ and the process. We try to provide information on the process through the internet, informational meetings and discussions with individuals. However, the general public does not interact with the DEQ on a routine basis – usually it is the one time occurrence. This hampers the communication efforts.

29. The meeting and its purpose is announced through one or more several formats: DEQ Calendar, public notice in local newspaper, RRD list serve notice, press release, email or hard copy mailings to meeting attendees, site specific information bulletins, and introductory remarks at meeting.

Participants understand how the hearing will be conducted. Comments:

1. We generally follow the model public hearing statement which does a pretty good job of explaining how the meeting/hearing will be conducted.

2. A statement is read detailing the ground rules and format for the Hearing. 3. We explain the process at the beginning. 4. The format was explained at the start of the meeting. 5. Not until we formally announce the process. Many people have comments that are multi-media and aren’t

happy when we tell them we only want comments regarding Air Quality and the permit in question. 6. Again, we explain it, but they will still sometimes ask questions during the comment period, etc. 7. The public often has an idea of how the hearing should be conducted which is usually far different than how it

actually is conducted. 8. Hearing examiner explains rules/process. 9. Needed to set ground rules up front. 10. The moderator did a good job laying out the housekeeping items at the beginning of the meeting and

reminding audience members to use the microphones in the aisles. 11. Conduct of the hearing was described by the moderator at the beginning. 12. As long as the process is explained in easily understood language prior to starting. 13. Public notice usually explains meeting format – testimony only, Q&A or both, also explained from podium.

Most everybody understands. 14. I believe that the participants understood how the meeting was to be conducted (presentations first and then

questions/answers), but because of how upset they are over this project it was hard for some of them to let the presenters get through their presentations and through the answers to their questions.

15. The meeting might have flowed smoother if the ground rules were explicitly stated at the beginning of the meeting.

16. The hearing officer did a good job explaining how the meeting was conducted at the start of the hearing. Unfortunately, due to misinformation outside the control of the DEQ (mentioned above) several people thought the hearing started at 7:30 and not 7:00 and came in late.

17. The audience did not appear to understand that only comments would be heard during the formal hearing no questions would be answered.

18. It is also important for the hearing officer to clearly state how the process will work. 19. This is done both at the time of arrival at the meeting and during the formal presentation. See previous

question for thoughts on understanding. 20. We make efforts to educate the public before and during the hearing. Since some have participated in local

government issues, there is some understanding. 21. During the introductory remarks, the meeting format is clearly announced; additionally, an agenda is provided

at each meeting that offers further details (front and back). Participants understand the review criteria set forth in statute and/or rules for the project/rules. Comments:

1. This depends on the sophistication of the participants. 2. They didn’t prior to the meeting – should have afterwards. 3. The rules and/or laws are not any good with no enforcement. 4. Understanding the regs, rules, and review processes is probably too much to ask of most. 5. There is often confusion regarding the criteria. 6. The script we use is full of legal citations from the law. No one follows it for long. 7. Again, this was explained at the start of the meeting.

71

8. Typically the consultants and some people understand the statute or rules. General public does not. 9. Most attendees are comparatively ignorant of the regulatory requirements that guide agency decisions and

limit the agency’s decision-making options. 10. Hardest part to get across – they don’t get that we have to approve if it meets the law. 11. A presentation outlining the AQD rules and permitting process was given. 12. Most participants have never read the material nor obtained the material prior to a hearing. Rarely does the

public understand the technical nature of the material being discussed and we do a poor job of providing them with comparative information.

13. Often complex and infused with legalese. 14. Only rarely do folks understand the statute and rules. 15. The audience was given an overview of the statutory/rule authority, what AQD does and doesn’t regulate and

the permit review process, but the meeting didn’t get into the details of specific permit review criteria. 16. The review criteria were explained at the beginning of the hearing by the moderator; however many

participants either ignored the explanation or did not believe DEQ actions are constrained by statute and rules.

17. Most citizens have no familiarity with the processes involved in reviewing and granting permits. 18. Participants rarely understand the agency’s review criteria. This may be the first hearing they’ve ever

attended. Many don’t want to know. 19. People will say what they want regardless if they understand the limitations of certain comments. Trying to

force speakers into a box will just frustrate them. It’s explained from the podium at the beginning but doesn’t have a lot of effect.

20. It appeared that the public, or at least some members of the public, did not understand the rules/statute. They did not understand what a 401 certificate was and they did not understand what is included in the permit.

21. There were a lot of questions from the audience related to which state regulations the Corps feels subject to and which it doesn’t feel required to follow for navigational servitude or national defense reasons. There were also several questions and considerable discussion about technical disputes between Corps and DEQ staff.

22. A lot of time was spent during the informal Q&A session after the formal hearing explaining the changes in how marinas are regulated following some contested case rulings circa 2000. Several people thanked the DEQ staff after the hearing for informing them about the permit review criteria.

23. The participants did not appear to understand the criteria that the DEQ is required to use to make their final determination on the permit. They did not appear to understand what factors would be evaluated under the law, the criteria for making a decision-other than encroachment onto adjacent property. At the close of the Q&A period, the participants felt that the applicant could apply for as many boat moorings as they would like to apply for and that nothing, other than remaining in their lakefront foot print really matters. They did not understand why the applicant’s compliance history would not factor into the DEQ’s decision making.

24. The hearings officer should go over the legal basis for the proposed action. However, there is a balance in the presentation of this part. The hearings officer should be able to state that the matter is appropriately within the legal authority of agency, but must also stress that there has not been a final or predetermined outcome. If attendees think the agency’s employees/leadership have already made the decision, they are more likely to become hostile. The hearings officer should also be aware and careful to not get too far into legal issues, particularly if he/she is not an attorney.

25. This is a tough one. The criteria tend to be very technical and bureaucratic. The most important thing is to stress the importance of their involvement in the process and that the process is ongoing, not limited to one hearing at a major milestone. Participants are encouraged to provide comment at the meeting/hearing and anytime thereafter. The hearings officer explains the deadline for comments to be included in the official hearing transcript.

26. It is the exception when the general public understands the statute and rules. We try to provide the information prior to the hearing through information on the internet, direct mailings, information sessions, and individual conversations. Some will try to learn. Many chose not to.

27. During the introductory remarks and throughout the meeting statute/rules/criteria are discussed, and are additionally outlined in information/education materials/handouts distributed at meeting. We endeavor to “speak” so technical and complex information is understandable.

72

The format gives all ample opportunity to be heard. Comments:

1. The meeting should have lasted as long as there were questions, the audience could leave when they wanted but it was billed as a Q&A and there was no announcement of limiting questions.

2. Moderator was very good. 3. We generally offer time for a Q&A. Once that is done, we transition into the formal comments for the record

portion. This lets people get their questions answered first and may obviate the need for a formal comment. 4. There was extensive time for questions from the audience. 5. In most cases yes. 6. All who know about it can speak, we could do a better job of letting people know about it though. 7. Two options were available to ask questions, a microphone and note cards if one did not want to speak

publicly. The latter option was allowed because it was not a hearing and testimony did not have to go on record.

8. For in-person comments, time limits are established based on number of people who wish to speak. 9. Meeting was not ended until all questions were answered. 10. AQD staff went past the 1:00 ending time to make sure that all questions were answered. Audience

members were encouraged to stay and talk to staff after the meeting as well as having staff available before the meeting.

11. Questions were answered and additional time to speak with the AQD staff was given after the meeting. 12. AQD staff went past the 1:00 ending time. 13. Participants were given the opportunity to comment by email or letter in addition to making verbal comments

at the hearing. 14. Allowing time before and after for less formal interaction whether it is one on one with staff or public

discussion is necessary otherwise some people will be intimidated by the formal atmosphere. Sometimes one on one is best before and after the meeting to prevent grandstanders from taking up most of the time in both the formal and hearing and the less formal part of the meeting. It is just as important that the citizens who took time out to attend have a chance to learn about the details of the project and the potential issues as well. They often may not have a question until after the hearing as a result of becoming educated about the project.

15. This is somewhat dependant on the level of controversy and the number of people attending and making statements. The more people, the less time that can be allotted per person for comments. Consequently, some people don’t feel they have enough time to be heard and as a result don’t feel like the state takes their comments seriously.

16. I don’t recall ever having to cut off testimony because the hearing was to long. 17. I feel that everyone who wanted to comment or ask a question was given time to do that. The Colonel from

the Army Corps of Engineers who co-hosted the meeting even offered to answers questions “all night” if that is what it took.

18. The formal hearing ended in approximately ½ hour because very few people wanted to speak on the record, but the informal Q&A session immediately afterwards lasted until nobody had any more questions, about two hours later.

19. In this case, there was confusion as to the time that the hearing was to start. Evidently, the newspaper published an announcement that the hearing was to start at 7:30 pm when the DEQ said that they put an announcement in the paper that the hearing was to begin at 7:00 pm. As such, participants were just arriving at the hearing when the hearings officer was closing the public comment period.

20. Time limits can help ensure that everyone gets to speak and helps to minimize grandstanding and theatrics. If someone has driven 2, 3 or more hours to attend a hearing, then telling them they have three minutes to speak because staff time is limited sends a message that the public’s comments are not that important. Staff involved in a public hearing, especially where there is a great deal of public interest, should schedule plenty of time. Also, when calling people forward to speak, there must be a concerted effort to not stack the deck and have only supporters speak first. I call on speakers in the order I’ve received their sign-in sheets.

21. Attendees are encouraged to speak publicly or provide comments in writing. In the case of a hearing, attendees may choose to speak privately to a court reporter rather than speaking publicly in front of everyone.

22. We stay at the hearing as long as there are people to speak. Also it is important to recognize that public hearings are not the only method of providing public comments. Written communication is usually more effective as the individual can articulate their concerns as well as provide additional documentation.

73

23. Our primary goal is to give attendees one or more opportunities to ask questions and receive answers about

the site/project. One way we do this is to set aside an hour before and/or after the meeting (aka staff availability session) to have staff (all identified with nametags) and information materials on hand to speak personally with community residents about any concerns or questions they might have (this is especially nice for folks who shy away from asking questions before an audience; it also gives us an idea of questions we can anticipate during the meeting). Additionally we include a designated question/comment or discussion period typically at the end of the meeting where attendees can speak from their seat (hand held mic) or from a standup mic. To facilitate this process, we announce/suggest during the introductory remarks and at the registration desk sign in sheet, agenda the following options for comment. Speak publicly sign name to 3x5 card and submit to DEQ staffer and we call on people to speak in the order cards are received. Speak anonymously - write question on 3 x 5 cards and submit to DEQ staffer and we read the question aloud and respond. Speak impromptu - once all 3 x 5 cards have been addressed, DEQ staff will ask the audience for additional questions. In an effort to hear from as many people at the meeting as possible, we ask if attendees will please hold their comments or questions until their name is called and if possible to limit their questions or comments to one to three minutes to permit others the time to comment. Of course, there are always some folks who will have a question or comment or want some clarification during other times of the meeting, we typically will honor these questions but might also first ask if it can wait until the question/answer session. At various stages of our site projects we are also at times required by statute to not only hold a public meeting, but to also offer (via a calendar and/or newspaper notice) a public comment period where the public can submit written comments to the DEQ project manager for the site typically announced at the public meeting to let folks know they still have another opportunity and format to comment.

There is courteous interaction between speakers and hearing officers. Comments:

1. There are always one or two bad apples. 2. Generally. 3. There are occasions when participants can lash-out verbally at the hearing officers. 4. Ninety percent of the time! 5. Everyone was very courteous and we didn’t have to limit questions, as the participants were very considerate

of allowing everyone a chance to ask questions. 6. Important decisions often ignite personal passions that often come out in comments that are accusatory or

abusive. In my experience, agency personnel have consistently handled these situations well. 7. AQD staff set the tone by being very professional, transparent, and sincere. 8. Hearing officer remains firm and respectful. 9. Occasionally, inappropriate comments are made. However, the hearing officer makes sure they are not

repeated. 10. Not a hearing, but all were courteous and respectful. 11. Responses from panel members were courteous. 12. Courtesy and respect were enhanced when an outside (non agency) experienced moderator was utilized.

This is an added expense, but maybe worthwhile when the subject is extremely contentious. 13. Attendees can be very abrasive, abusive and discourteous. 14. Hearing officers and other staff need to remain courteous but it is not reasonable to think the public will

remain courteous even if asked to do so all the time if their problems haven’t been addressed in some personal and relevant way before the hearing.

15. It is very important for the hearings officer to be a confident public speaker and assert control of the hearing. The hearings officer needs to be prepared well ahead of time and provide this information in a conversational tone, rather than the drone of a page read aloud.

16. Almost always. Sometimes things can get a little heated. 17. There was no hearing officer because it was a public meeting, not a hearing. 18. There was one township resident who was hostile and grandstanding. She didn’t want to allow or hear the

answers to her questions. The discussions between Jim Koski (county DPW chair) the township supervisor, the township resident Terry Miller, Lone Tree Council, got fairly heated due to the dispute between the township and the county. Director Chester settled most of that down by stating some ground rules about allowing people to respond to the questions asked. Laying down the ground rules before the start of the meeting might have alleviated some of that problem, although defusing the township resident’s hostility would be a big challenge.

74

19. The interaction between the audience and the hearing officers was generally courteous. However there were

numerous side conversations going on during the informal Q&A session after the formal public hearing which was distracting. If the audience writes down their questions on cards which are read by the DEQ officials, that might reduce the side conversations.

20. At the close of the hearing during the Q&A period, there was no order everyone was talking at the same time. It went from bad to worse with everyone in the room talking to the person sitting next to them and the presenter talking to individually to the person asking the question with no one in the audience hearing/understanding the question/answer.

21. This is absolutely necessary. The hearing officer should always be courteous, and stress that the entire purpose of the hearing is to hear from people, not to debate, and certainly not to alienate speakers by dismissing their concerns either verbally or through body language.

22. The rules of engagement are explained in a courteous manner so that everyone present feels comfortable to speak and understands how the orderly process works to ensure every ones involvement.

23. Even when facing an angry audience, our agency people are patient, courteous and respectful of the audience at public meetings and make every effort to listen and to acknowledge their concerns (and try to understand those concerns from the audience’s point of view). We may not always be able to promise the results the audience wants, but we listen to them and let them know we are open to examining all the options. We feel the staff availability sessions before a public meeting especially help us to establish a rapport/relationship with community residents; to let them know we are approachable, that we care about them and their community, are knowledgeable and hopefully in the end help gain their trust in us. PS. One thing that helps in being approachable we (RRD staff) always make a point to keep our speakers table or podium at the same level or lower as the audience seating. No podiums or speakers table on the stage.

There is courteous interaction between the speakers representing differing opinions. Comments:

1. This was an informational meeting only – not a dialogue. 2. Generally. 3. There were questions only. Not opportunity to view opinions or comments. 4. This depends on how well the hearings officer handles the meeting. 5. Hearing officer does not allow feud or insulting behavior. 6. Speakers respectful of different positions. 7. No hostility was observed. 8. Most attendees who spoke were adamantly opposed to the proposed project; some of those in favor felt

intimidated. 9. The opponents of the project in question generally outnumber the proponents; shouting matches between the

two sides can be a problem. 10. However, sometimes people are mad and need to be able to express that before they can listen or attempt to

be objective. Staff and hearings officers need to remain calm and objective. 11. Generally this is true. But at times the differing opinions can cause some dissension among the crowd. 12. Most of my hearings are pretty one sided. The minority, if they dare speak, will sometimes get a little razzing.

I have had hearings where viewpoints were split but I don’t recall any serious altercations (verbal or otherwise).

13. I felt that Director Chester and Colonel Leady both were very respectful of each other and admitted when there was a difference of opinion on certain topics.

14. See the comments for the previous question. 15. There were numerous side conversations going on during the informal Q&A session after the formal public

hearing which was distracting. One possible improvement would be to have an informal Q&A session one hour before the formal public hearing and have people write down their questions on cards to be read by the DEQ staff. That can be used to break up the flow and defuse tensions if necessary.

16. The hearing officer sets the tone by assuring that all views are welcome and encouraged, and that all will have an opportunity to go on record. The hearing officer should not encourage (and should discourage) attendees from debating each other.

17. Absolutely. The study team leaders, positioned at the front to hear comments being expressed, do not immediately respond to them, but rather ask the audience to allow them adequate time to prepare appropriate responses to concerns and quotations raised during the open portion of the meeting. While some present may want to engage the study team in verbal banter, they quickly realize the response plan and back down.

75

18. In general, the interaction depends on the history of the area, the demeanor of the individuals, the skill of the

hearings officer, and other variables (hearing room, temperature, date/time of hearing etc). 19. Some discussions between audience members with differing opinions can become very heated, but we make

every effort to intervene and remind the audience to be respectful of each other and their opinions and allow everyone to be heard.

There is a good mix of viewpoints. Comments:

1. Very rarely do controversial topics attract participants from both perspectives. Generally the vocal minority dominates these hearings.

2. Usually very narrow and localized (one or two hot topics). 3. Relatively few who are in favor of new permits speak. 4. There’s usually both sides of the issue represented. 5. Most of those in attendance were of the same mind set - opposed to the project/permit. 6. See comment above. 7. Would like to have knowledgeable professional speak for the citizens at times – quite often the citizens

oppose something, but don’t have the scientific basis for pertinent comment. Used to get environmental groups at public hearings, but not much anymore.

8. Some good questions from the public will result in additional review on the permit. 9. Depends on how controversial the facility or issue is to the participants. 10. Interested individuals/groups representing all views were directly notified of. 11. DEQ did not rebut ACE’s position at public meeting. 12. Really wasn’t a meeting for the purpose of sharing different viewpoints. NA. 13. Based on feedback from letters, verbal communications, and polls outside of the hearing forum, we know

there is a significant portion of the populace who support the proposed project. However, they are not as emotionally involved or adamant in their views, and often feel intimidated (see above), and so tend to be under-represented at the hearing. However, few persons on either side of the issue addressed the technical criteria on which the decision was to be based.

14. See immediately above. 15. Generally though one viewpoint frequently has more support than the other. 16. Most of my hearings are pretty one sided. 17. Both Director Chester and Colonel Leady admitted that the solution was a compromise that came out of a

disagreement on the technical information. 18. In some hearings there is not a mix of views, particularly if it is part of a series. 19. By avoiding the desire to engage in point/counterpoint with speakers, you actually encourage people to open

up and provide their opinion, which leads to greater diversity of thought on the matter. While some may want to engage that way, the average person just wants to be heard. Participants also are told that they can pass on speaking if they feel their comment already has been stated by someone. They also can chose to speak anytime during the open part. They just need to complete a speaker ID to be called on to speak.

20. It is typical to hear from only those against the project. 21. When we plan a public meeting, it’s our intention to involve all sides of the table. In addition to our regular

meeting notifications (calendar, newspaper, listserv, etc) we make every effort to personally call or contact (email, snail mail) key players or opinion leaders to invite them to the meeting to make sure all viewpoints will be represented. To avoid what we think could be some heated interactions at the public meeting, we may consider holding separate “pre-meetings” with key opinion leaders or groups before the public meeting to better gain an understanding of a person’s or group’s concerns beforehand and discuss options in this less formal setting.

The hosting agency gains new or clarifying information that will help it develop, revise, or implement rules or programs. Comments:

1. I can’t speak for DEQ’s reactions. 2. We try to accommodate, sometimes project is too far along. 3. My experience is that rarely does the public come prepared to really discuss the legality or science involved

with issues on which decisions are being made. 4. Useful information gained usually limited. It is always an excellent opportunity to provide useful information.

76

5. Some of the questions posed will result in additional review of issues. 6. In my experience, the great majority of the comments received have little practical bearing on the agency’s

decision or its future development of its program. 7. Quite often its just “we don’t want it”. We can’t really use this comment. 8. Rarely. These meetings typically are filled with emotions and not much facts or science. 9. Agency was sincere in seeking the public’s views and ideas. 10. Not applicable, DEQ decisions already made, public being informed of decisions. 11. This was an informational meeting, not a formal public hearing to accept comments into the administrative

record. One audience member may have soil sample data to share with the AQD toxicologist. 12. Toxicologist was informed of soil sample data existing for Midland Michigan that both the DEQ and EPA

have. The purpose of the meeting was informational in nature not to promulgate or revise rules. 13. Most of the testimony and written comments focused on non-jurisdictional issues. Of the relatively few

comments that related to statutory or rule requirements, some were difficult to verify or put in context. Note that this is referring to a permit decision hearing; we have had somewhat better experience with relevance at rules hearings.

14. The hosting agency rarely hears anything that will cause it to reconsider a permit. Typically loud vocal opposition, usually based on fear of the project’s impacts and the inability of the agency to guarantee absolutely the safety of the project, is expressed to the exclusion of sound technical information that might impact the permit or its conditions.

15. If it is done correctly staff and/or the company will follow up on any new information that they may not have known about before.

16. Most times, the agency has all the technical information available. However, there always is the possibility that the public has information or concerns that have not been considered by the agency. By including that information in the public record, the agency is required to provide a thoughtful response to the comment.

17. We usually get something but usually not a lot. Written comments tend to be more useful and substantive. 18. On a couple different occasions, Director Chester said things such as “that was a good point.” I am not sure

if it was anything that will help change things down the road or not, but just acknowledging when someone makes a good point helps calm the situation down to some extent.

19. District DEQ staff did hear some concerns about the need for warning signs along the river concerning swimming and fish consumption and the proposed rails to trails conversation adjacent to the DMDF to which they will respond. Otherwise DEQ/Corps didn’t learn anything new from this meeting, it was a meeting to convey information and allow the audience to air their concerns.

20. The flow of information was more from DEQ to the audience rather than the other way. The DEQ was already pretty well aware, based on previous complaints, about how some lake residents feel about this proposed project.

21. The DEQ learned that lake residents feel that lake conditions need to be evaluated as part of the permit process. However, no one left the hearing with the opinion that the DEQ would pursue rules or programs that would allow for this information to be included in the permit evaluation process.

22. The hearing officer must assure that comments will be considered. Some comments may be or seem outlandish or ill informed but the hearing officer and the agency program staff should evaluate them seriously. The public hearing report in SOAHR provides a good model.

23. Yes, trust based public involvement is essential to good decision making. It is important that both sides listen and learn. While it’s not always easy to act on what the public says, it is equally important for them to understand the process and the why and why not.

24. We always learn something during a public hearing. It helps the agency look at a project in a slightly different way.

The public hearing process is successful. Comments:

1. Define “success.” If it is to conduct a legally required involvement process, then perhaps. But if it is to obtain information useful in making the decision or helping the community understand the project and adjust how it will affect them, then no.

2. It provided needed information which was its purpose. 3. Traditionally, we have very poor attendance. 4. The process allows people to be heard as required by the law.

77

5. Generally. We need to interact more frequently on projects. 6. There have been times when no one shows up for the hearing. Is that successful? The process requires

multiple postings; however, there may still be a lack of public involvement. From the Division’s standpoint, if the process has been followed and the rule adopted, it is successful.

7. Many positive comments were received during and after the meeting. 8. Many people expect answers to their questions during the formal hearing. We have tried to implement a Q &

A session before the formal hearing. 9. Definitely. 10. It’s a mixed bag, the process is effective at getting information out to the people in attendance, but the fact

remains that they typically have little real impact on the agency’s decisions and they know it. This creates the often accurate impression that the process is largely a pro forma exercise.

11. This was a successful informational meeting. The audience left with a better understanding of the AQD permitting and public comment process which will hopefully result in more effective public participation later.

12. Due to political considerations not all requests/ideas are implemented. 13. Negotiations and decisions completed without public input, meeting to inform of decisions. 14. The meeting has not yet been conducted. 15. Only in the sense that it allows public participation which apparently means allowing the public an opportunity

to speak out in opposition to the project under consideration. 16. The least successful or quite frankly the most failure is when the staff do not openly discuss and respond to

all of the issues, and the company involved does not express all the issues or respond to questions. When there are differences of opinion between the department staff and the company, these issues should be discussed openly in order to explain the real issues/limitations/regulations etc. of the project being considered.

17. Yes, though more effort can be devoted to providing information to the public prior to the formal hearing. 18. I think that the meeting was successful. The DEQ and Army Corps of Engineers were able to answer some

of the questions the residents had regarding the project, and it gave the residents a chance to voice their opposition to (and concerns with) the project.

19. The Corps (and DEQ, to a lesser extent) obviously has a hard task to establish or re-establish trust among the township residents. The Corps did not come across as being very concerned with the concerns of the township residents. The Corps staff obviously are not very skilled regarding effect PPT.

20. About the best that could be hoped for under this public hearing format is that the audience left informed of the permit review criteria and the options available for parties that are aggrieved by the permit decision. It’s unrealistic that everyone will be happy with the permit review process or the agency’s decision on the permit, but they should at least understand how the decision will be made and what their options are if they wish to contest the agency’s decision.

21. We heard from the public and the impacted industry and made changes not just to the proposed decisions, but just as importantly to the communications and educational material attached to it.

22. A hearing is successful when the participants feel their concerns have been recognized and heard. Please explain your ranking of the previous statement about success. Comments:

1. The purpose of a recent hearing on a landfill’s RAP was not clearly understood by all members of the public, likely because they did not understand where the facility was in the corrective action process. The facility representatives also did not do a good job explaining/selling their proposal to the public. WHMD is developing a model public hearing statement to better explain the process.

2. See above “Define success” 3. This meeting pointed out that the need for a new power plant, the location and other important information is

not covered by a DEQ permit, so many pieces of the puzzle were left out. 4. It filled the immediate need but did not go to any great lengths. It was average. 5. The public hearing was successful, in that it provided an opportunity for the public to fully understand the

project/issue, what was intended, the expected outcome and potential impact to local public health and the environment. It also provided an opportunity for the public to be heard and express their concerns. The public hearing was held in conjunction with a meeting, thus allowing for a Q&A period. It is believed that providing an opportunity for attendees to have their concerns heard, contributes to the success of a public hearing. If a permit is issued in the absence of a lawsuit being filed, or rules are ultimately promulgated, then that is a sign of success.

78

6. Citizens were heard on issues that concerned them. The Department considered their comments before they

acted on the permit. And, in some cases, the citizen input played a significant role in the agency’s decision. 7. While public hearings are conducted with the best of intentions, the opinions gathered do not necessarily

represent the feelings of the majority of affected parties, the arguments presented by the vocal minorities are often purely emotional, and the result is an appearance that the department does not take into account the input of the public.

8. Prior to the taking of oral, formal, comments, we have an informal Q&A with DEQ staff and the applicant. 9. Success is measured based on point of view. Many of the participants do not agree that it was successful if

the result is not what they were after. As for DEQ position, we have given the people a chance to be heard, and gathered information to aid in the decision making process.

10. They think that the decision is already made and are cynical about the outcome. 11. Public hearings are only as successful as the participants are educated to the issue. If the DEQ is interested

in having meaningful public hearings and meetings, we need to educate the public on the issue and proved opportunities for the public to gather their own input. Often we hold hearings without public meetings and the participants are reacting to what someone else has told them or what they have seen or heard from the media; often this information is not accurate.

12. Technical objectives of the hearing were met, but many members of the public did not experience the result they wanted. This is a function mainly of public expectations that do not match the public hearing process.

13. ACE explained their assumptions for the computer model used, DEQ has disagreed in writing, but DEQ staff present did not express concerns about the model or other ACE positions.

14. I think that the meeting met its objectives which were informational in nature. 15. This often results in some backlash by those who disagree with the ultimate decision or action. Agencies

should expect their decisions to be contentious, and hearings can do little to make them less so. However, many people want an opportunity to speak out, and hearings should be considered successful to the extent they provide that opportunity. A smaller number are seeking more factual information on an issue, and a public information session in conjunction with the hearing can provide that.

16. We can always improve upon what we have and how we conduct ourselves and our public meetings/hearings. I believe it’s very important to involve staff with good people skills in this process. Not all staff have good people skills or are interested in developing that talent.

17. The only reason I didn’t give this a 6 is because I have had hearings where hardly anyone showed up or spoke. But that tells us that people are not too concerned.

18. In a situation such as this one, you are never going to make everyone happy. However, by answering their questions and talking one-on-one with some of the residents after the meeting. I believe the situation was made a little better. If nothing else, at least the public’s opinions were heard, even if the final result does not change.

19. The participants left the hearing feeling that the Marine Permits program in our state is ineffective and that decisions are basically “rubber stamped”. No one understood why only 32 boats were allowed 20 years ago and the 98 boats will probably be permitted now when the lake has become much more crowded over the years. No one understood why the applicant’s disregard of the law for the past several years would not be a factor in the DEQ permit decision.

20. We prefer to call it public involvement, which is much broader term that includes the public hearing but extends throughout the planning process. Public involvement limited to the hearing, is not effective, as the public feels the agency is just going through the motions and is not sincere. Public involvement needs to be genuine and continuous.

21. In Red’s case, I think we need to take every opportunity to meet with and listen to the public, and more so if the site/project is controversial. Through trial and error, and with the right training, we are becoming better at involving the public in our decision-making processes; we are learning to become more human and less bureaucratic. We have developed some good communication tools to help us in this process but more reminders from management on how important this is, followed up with more public participation training is needed.

79

Considering this same public hearing: Did you hold an informational session in addition to the formal public hearing? YES NO

1. Although an informal session was not scheduled in this case, the Hearings Officer announced that staff would be available after the hearing to answer questions. For some permitting actions, we do schedule an informal meeting prior to the public hearing.

2. Per the speaker they are not allowed to look at all effects of this docking. No enforcement. 3. This was not a hearing, but an up-front informational meeting on several related large projects under permit

review. 4. This was an info session.

If yes, was it beneficial? YES NO NO OPINION If no, would such a session have been helpful in communicating the issues with the public? YES NO NO OPINION Were representatives of the permit requester present (if applicable)? YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Did not see Mid Michigan Energy LLC Representatives. Did see City of Midland Director of Utility and City of Midland Planning Director.

If yes, was this a positive or negative influence on the proceedings? POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL Was an elected governmental official present? LOCAL STATE NONE DON’T KNOW Please suggest how your agency can improve its next public hearing:

1. Better public hearing statement for DEQ and better instructions to applicant. 2. Continued help for the community in understanding the nature and limits of the ultimate agency decision. 3. Notices of the hearing should be extended beyond the minimum required by statute (i.e., publication in the

local newspaper). In some instances providing notices through the local radio stations, television or local churches may be appropriate. Some local residents miss or do not read or subscribe to local newspapers and as such miss the notices of the hearing. They feel the agency is intentionally excluding them by not properly notifying them of the hearing through other channels.

4. Not so much security, I felt uncomfortable. 5. Please make it known that there will be no lobbying. Plain and simple. For Ken Bradstreet to take

representatives of Rogers City up to meet their nice little permit engineer and get their picture taken with her was way over the top. We all saw it as a good move by an experienced political lobbyist - create a personal relationship to hopefully receive preferential treatment. This was sleazy, but we have come to expect that from Wolverine. Also I specifically asked for an additional public hearing, and was instructed that Mr. Helwig was in charge of that. I put my request on paper with my contact info and had staff deliver it to him. I have not received an answer from Mr. Helwig. This only keeps questions alive as to how the public will really be served.

6. Clearly list the quantity of emissions/particulates that proposed plants rather or in addition to the % efficiency of the technology. As citizens we need to know how much pollution is going into the ambient air and water/soil.

7. The format used worked well. I can’t think of anything to do to improve it very much. 8. Ample and plenty of notification obviously is a key for a successful hearing. Continue to find ways to get the

word out as much as possible. 9. For public hearings to be effective, the public attendees must feel welcome and have adequate time to

express their views in a non-threatening welcoming environment. I personally believe effective techniques include greeting attendees as they arrive, making relevant information readily available, and having a pre-public meeting for open discussion between staff and attendees before the formal hearing process. I also like the idea of surveying attendees after the public hearing to obtain their thoughts on the process – what worked well and what needs improvement. This survey is best done by calling attendees rather than by written device.

10. It would be helpful to spend more time answering questions, but there frequently are time constraints involved. Perhaps the agency could request questions in advance and then prepare a written summary to distribute at the hearing.

80

11. There is no right way to do public hearings. Sometimes an informational session with questions and answers

is very positive for all concerned. However, sometimes individuals with strongly held objections to a process or project will sabotage that type of session, making it an overall negative experience for the agency and the public. DEQ staff/management should have the ability to decide which format(s) will most effectively involve the public in our decision making process.

12. We always work to communicate with people who are concerned about a facility before the hearing. A hearing should never be the only public participation venue.

13. Perhaps by having an informational session on a date prior to the public hearing, rather than immediately preceding the hearing.

14. We have tried different times of the day, different locations, and every available media outlet; however attendance is still very poor. We conduct routine public input meetings throughout the year and feel that overall the public and local officials have had an opportunity to provide input into MDOT’s 5-year program. We continue to explore new and innovative ways to improve attendance.

15. If public hearings have no effect on the outcome, then don’t waste everyone’s time. 16. From an expense standpoint…publishing notice in three newspapers and the Michigan Register is extremely

costly. Finding an alternative to this would be an improvement. For example, internet posting on a site specifically designated for rule making, etc.

17. Shorter introduction script. Generate a short FAQ document for each hearing – we do this occasionally. 18. General information session and Q&A session should be a must. 19. All in all I thought this one went very well. However, I’m not sure it was the correct forum for the issues of the

concerned citizens. It was an avenue open to them, but we could not resolve their concerns (which was…. We do not want the MHP in our community).

20. Until and unless laws are revised to give local communities a larger voice in the decision-making process, the situation will not change significantly. Some improvement might be made by changing the timing of the hearing. Currently, hearings are typically held after the agency has performed the majority of its review work as a final step toward an agency decision. If hearings were held earlier in the process, they might generate comment that would be helpful in informing the agency’s review. This would require a different approach including requiring the applicant to make the initial presentation to both the agency and the interest public.

21. Direct mailings to neighbors instead of only a public notice. Always do info session first; mostly they have questions.

22. Our agency has given this considerable thought and expect to work in the future on strengthening public understanding of what can and cannot happen as a result of a public hearing. Specifically, this means explaining that the state does not make local land use decisions (as this is the responsibility of local government) and therefore a permit will be issued as long as all environmental requirements are met.

23. Possibly hold additional informational meetings in the Saginaw Bay area and/or in the northern Lower Peninsula. Since two of the applications are in Bay City and Midland, I suggest holding another meeting in the Saginaw Bay area. I suspect such a meeting would be better attended and draw a more diverse audience that includes local residents.

24. Continue to inform the public of the process and criteria of DEQ review. Inform people of public comment period time limits so people are prepared prior to the public hearing.

25. Hold just one or two hearing sessions (the subject hearing went for five days) Hold separate informational sessions immediately before the hearing (in the subject case, they were held concurrently with the hearing.) Do more to emphasize the regulatory criteria and basis for the action (i.e. add an explanation to the hearing notice, press release, etc. in addition to the opening statement).

26. Public hearings held under the authority of Part 625 Mineral Wells, of NREPA should be held as contested case hearings, before an administrative law judge, with sworn testimony and exhibits. By doing so, some semblance of order could be maintained and it would prevent the soapbox presentations so common at such hearings. Additionally representatives of elected officials or the elected officials themselves would be prevented from grandstanding for the benefit of their constituents.

27. I have been to hearings that haven’t worked well. Discussion of issues needs to occur whether someone asks the question or not. A good public meeting or hearing will make sure issues or potential problems are discussed so people know you are trying to be as transparent as possible. My experience is that transparency eventually leads to trust of the agency decision regardless of the side of the issue someone is on. Meeting with people one on one whom you know have concerns before a meeting often helps as well. Meeting with them on their turf is also helpful.

81

28. AQD has had success conducting informal informational meetings prior to the formal public hearing. We took

extra measures to have more staff present and to greet each participant/attendee and thank them for being involved. When possible, we initiated conversation to determine interests and encourage public participation in the process. Each staff was clearly identified with name tag.

29. None. I think it works OK. 30. This was not a hearing that I was directly involved in, so I do not know all of the specifics other than the fact

that this was not the first meeting they had on this subject. It is very hard to predict every question that might be asked, but I think it pays to be as prepared as possible. Such as a floodplain permit had been issued for the site and if a copy had been available, it could have been used to show the woman exactly what the permit said. However, maybe some of those documents were on hand and just were not used.

31. I think this meeting might have gone better by using an informal question and answer session format similar to most recent Shoreline Maintenance General Permit meetings in the Saginaw Bay region where field staff sat at different tables to have one on one discussion with the public. The irate township resident could have been steered aside to meet with DEQ and/or Corps staff away from the rest of the group, thus negating her attempts to grandstand.

32. I recommend trying the following: 1) Hold an informal Q&A type information meeting one hour before the formal public hearing opens and stay after the formal hearing closes as long as necessary to answer any remaining questions. 2) Give the audience cards to write down their questions when they arrive and hand them to the DEQ staff. 3) Open the information meeting with a power point presentation that contains an overview of the formats for information meeting and formal public hearing, an overview of the permit review criteria and a summary of what the DEQ does and doesn’t regulate with suggestions about who to contact regarding issues the DEQ doesn’t regulate. 4) Make some of the information in number three available before the meeting on the DEQ’s website and also in handouts at the meeting. 5) Shorten the formal hearing statement by removing information that’s addressed in items 3, 4, and 6. The hearings officer and any other DEQ staff present sort the audiences questions into groups by subject, read the question and answer them.

33. The DEQ should require the applicant to mail out notice to ALL residents on the lake notifying them of the hearing, since the project affects all lake residents. The applicant can get names and addresses for lake residents from the township to make this mailing a reality. Further if this had been done this would have eliminated the confusion about the time that the hearing was to be held, the personal mailing would have had the correct time listed. The DEQ also needs to maintain order throughout the entire hearing so that when questions are asked the entire audience benefits from the answer. The DEQ also needs to explain up front the factors that can be evaluated in their decision making. This discussion needs to state in lay terms the criteria and the meaning of the criteria. The public needs to understand what comments may make a difference to the DEQ decision. Unless the public knows what things may make a difference in the DEQ decision, they won’t know what they should bring to the DEQ’s attention (things that the DEQ should be aware of and that may cause the DEQ to revise the permit/deny the permit).

34. The informational presentation was helpful to have before the hearing, in order to present some of the relevant background information that some of the attendees/speakers were not aware of. However, a presentation before the hearing should make clear that this is background information and a big part of how the agency came to the proposed decision, but not imply that the decision is done or that anyone who disagrees is ill informed.

35. Continue to follow the strategies we have developed thus far in our RRD Public meeting Checklist for a successful public meeting and always, always evaluate how our meetings went afterwards and how we can improve. NOTE: this checklist is currently a component of the DEQ's Communication Toolkit found at this location on the Intranet: click on Agency Information, Click on Communications Toolkit, and scroll down to DEQ Agency Communications Toolkit DEQ Guidance, and then click on Public Meeting Checklist.

Please tell us which department/division/agency/program that you are representing and the type of public hearing you are describing:

1. DEQ, WHMD, solid waste landfill remedial action plan approval. 2. Executive Division. 3. RRD. However, I have conducted several hearings as a Hearings Officer for several divisions (AQD, WHMD,

WB and LWMD). 4. MDEQ-AQD, Coal-fired power plant air permit public information meeting with question and answers period. 5. Senator Liz Brater. 6. Not applicable.

82

7. Private citizen. 8. DEQ/WHMD. The public hearing described was specific to approval of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The

same format has been used of Solid Waste Landfill permits, with the same results. 9. MDOT, National Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA), Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC). 10. The Department of Environmental Quality, and I am describing a fairly common public hearing particularly for

actions on permits and plan approvals. 11. DEQ-NPDES Permit Hearing. 12. Permit for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). 13. DEQ/WB/Groundwater/632. My responses are based on several Kennecott hearings/meetings as well as my

experience with public meetings on the Dead River Flood and public hearings on NPDES permits (primarily mining) over the past 25 years.

14. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Northwest Region Solid Waste Program. Lakeside Landfill permit renewal hearing. This facility is located in a rural area and next to a popular winery. There is an organized and very vocal neighbors group who want the landfill to close immediately. ODQE determined that the landfill will stop collecting waste in July 09. See http://www.deq.state.or.us/nwr/LakesideReclamation.htm. There were many meetings with this opposition group before the hearing. Neighbors praised the work of several DEQ staff at the hearing.

15. DEQ/WB/CAFO. 16. MDOT. This was a public hearing in the city of Bessemer regarding a proposed trial conversion of the 4-lane

configuration of US-2 to a 3-lane configuration, in an attempt to calm traffic and improves safety. 17. MDOT. Local input meetings, elected officials meetings, transportation summits, legislative input meetings,

etc. some generalized towards our 5-Year Program, some project specific. 18. WHMD – we recently conducted a public meeting prior to making a formal decision on a remedial action plan

for a landfill. 19. MDOA, Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Div./Pesticide Section, Pesticide rule changes. 20. DEQ/LWMD/Part 301 & 303. 21. AQD. This was an up-front informational meeting to deal with general issues related to several new coal-

fired power plants that are currently under permit review in the division. This will be followed by informational meetings and public hearings for each project as it moves forward.

22. AQD, a hearing for an air permit at an ethanol plant. 23. DEQ/WB/NPDES, the public hearing was related to the issuance of a surface water discharge permit for the

disposal of domestic wastewater from a mobile home park. 24. RRD hearing re: site cleanup work and past experiences in permit/license-related hearings. 25. DEQ/WHMD, RAP public hearing. 26. AQD informational meeting for Coal-fired Power Plant Permit Applications. 27. DEQ/AQD, A permit public hearing. 28. DNR, outreach/information. 29. Virginia Department of Environment Quality, Public Affairs Office. The hearing was on a state operating air

permit for a coal-fired power plant. 30. RRD, meeting regarding Saginaw River DMDF. 31. DEQ/LWMD, informational meeting on coal fired power plants held at the State Library on 6/25/08. 32. Concerned Citizen. 33. DEQ, Office of Geological Survey. Hearing on proposed decision to issue a Mining Permit to Kennecott

Eagle Minerals Company. 34. DEQ/Office of Geological Survey, mineral well program. 35. I was MMC at a WHMD public hearing and meeting regarding a landfill expansion permit. RRD does not

traditionally do many public hearings but we hold public meetings frequently for controversial sites. They are usually quite successful because everyone coming to the meetings eventually learns that there will be an open and frank discussion of the issues. They also know we will meet with them individually if necessary to fully explore what their concern is.

36. DEQ/AQD/Public hearing on issuance of an air permit. 37. DEQ, WB, NPDES Permit. 38. I am with the Water Bureau of the DEQ. However, the meeting I attended was a public informational meeting

on a LWMD project. 39. DEQ/LWMD but I attended solely to observe the meeting as a Leadership Academy participant. Upper

Saginaw River Dredged Material Disposal Facility information meeting held at Saginaw Valley State University on 6/24/08.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/nwr/LakesideReclamation.htm

83

40. Agriculture. Thoughts above are based on public hearings under the Animal Industry Act that are required

when making changes to the Bovine TB program. 41. MDOT public involvement and hearings are done primarily for environmental clearance processes for major

action documents. (Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements). 42. DEQ AQD permitting. 43. DEQ, RRD, public meeting regarding site of environmental contamination cleanup remedy and enforcement

action. Please share any relevant standard documents (i.e., Notice of Hearing, Hearing Officer's Opening Statements, Comment Cards, Response to Comment documents, etc.), and/or list any reference material that you would recommend related to this topic:

1. Press releases, newspaper ads, sign-in sheet, meeting minutes. 2. If the DEQ and DNR do not talk to each other then it is a waste of tax payers’ money. Again, if there is no

enforcement then again it is a waste of money. 3. In follow-up to this experience, we have modified the department’s model public hearing statement for use at

a RAP public meeting. We felt this was necessary as the public does not have a good understanding of where we are in the process, what has been done to date to get us to this point, or what the purpose of the meeting is and why are we soliciting comments anyways.

4. This was a first for the division, I believe, to hold a general informational session of this type for several related large projects at once. There were several documents available to the participants in the meeting, ranking from general AQD information to overviews of the projects being discussed at the meeting. The Power Point slides were made available on-line following the meeting. I feel that permits did a great job of preparing and presenting some very technical material in a manner that was understood by all present. I was at the meeting as a district representative for one of the projects that is proposed for my district. The meeting allowed me to meet some of the local officials from the area that came to the meeting.

5. Surveying the participants after the hearing is the best indicator of how things went. 6. Several workgroup members were present and had access to the information. 7. I do have these in my possession. 8. See attached hearing notice, opening statement, and response to comments. 9. Regarding the questions after considering this same public hearing, the information session was probably a

waste of time since the attendees had already formed their negative opinions of the project and were not in my opinion interested in receiving more information about it. The items presented at the informational hearing did little to inform the attendees about the nature of the project and the potential for environmental and public safety impacts.

10. They are in NMS. Scott can get them. Responsiveness summary won’t be done until mid July. 11. I’m attaching the most recent hearing script used for a rules change public hearing. 12. Check with Bryce as I would be giving you the same documents he has either given you or will be giving you.

A good first start is the web site: http//www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/cwerp.html. 13. Attached in hard copy.

84

APPENDIX F


COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

87

APPENDIX G

PPT TEST SURVEY

and


88

Survey for Feedback About the October 20, 2008 Detroit Town Hall Meeting Background: This survey is intended to help the DEQ identify what was good and what was not good about this town hall meeting format. Please take five minutes and complete the form. We value your input! Directions: By placing a circle around the number of your choice, please rate the following statements on a scale of 1 – 6. If you have no opinion, circle #7 for “don’t know”. The registration process was efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Having local people assist with the meeting was more helpful than just having DEQ staff there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The amount of assistance DEQ staff provided at the site before the meeting started was adequate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Having printed handout materials about DEQ programs at the meeting was valuable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEQ staff greeting participants helped to make your meeting experience better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEQ staff adequately communicated to the audience the purpose of the meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEQ staff adequately communicated to the audience how the meeting was to be conducted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Using note cards was a good way to get your questions asked. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Your question was adequately answered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The meeting format gave everyone plenty of time to be heard. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEQ staff people were friendly and courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Being able to individually discuss your issues with DEQ staff after the meeting was valuable to you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overall, you had a good meeting experience. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please tell us how you found out about the meeting.____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please tell us what was best about the meeting._______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please tell us what we could have changed to make your meeting experience better.__________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________


Some-what agree

Some-what

disagree


Don’t know

89

A SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES

Survey for Feedback About the October 20, 2008 Detroit Town Hall Meeting

1) The registration process was efficient. 2 0 1 2 9 9 3 2) Having local people assist with the meeting was more helpful than just having DEQ staff there. 1 1 1 4 8 13 1 3) The amount of assistance DEQ staff provided at the site before the meeting started was adequate 2 0 1 7 9 4 4 4) Having printed handout materials about DEQ programs at the meeting was valuable. 2 0 4 2 10 8 2 5) DEQ staff greeting participants helped to make your meeting experience better. 1 2 1 4 13 3 3 6) DEQ staff adequately communicated to the audience the purpose of the meeting. 1 1 2 5 9 6 3 7) DEQ staff adequately communicated to the audience how the meeting was to be conducted. 1 1 1 4 14 5 3 8) Using note cards was a good way to get your questions asked. 1 1 3 5 6 8 3 9) Your question was adequately answered. 1 2 4 2 6 3 5 10) The meeting format gave everyone plenty of time to be heard. 1 3 2 3 10 7 1 11) DEQ staff people were friendly and courteous. 2 0 0 1 14 9 1 12) Being able to individually discuss your issues with DEQ staff after the meeting was valuable to you. 0 1 1 3 8 7 2 13) Overall, you had a good meeting experience. 1 1 1 3 11 7 0 Comments inserted in above questions There may have been too many DEQ staff congregating around the registration table, which may have contributed to no one asking for assistance filling out question cards. There were more DEQ staff present than was probably necessary. There was poor coordination with Sierra Club prior to the meeting, likely due to their representative not getting back to us in a timely fashion. Sierra Club moderator did a reasonably good job, except that they allowed some individuals to grandstand and fan a sense of outrage in the audience. Director Chester did a good job of stepping in and regaining control of the meeting. Sierra Club did a good job of getting people to the meeting. The note cards were not used effectively by the facilitator.


Some-what agree

Some-what

disagree


Don’t know

90

Had there not been so many DEQ staff present, it would have been good to introduce them at the start of the meeting. Not sure if questions were adequately answered during meeting, but this staff person spent a lot of time after the meeting answering questions. Meeting attendees were observed taking handouts, especially the ones about Highland Park’s enforcement action against illegal dumping. Some of the questions on cards did not get asked due to some activists exceeding their time limits and the facilitator not enforcing the time limit. It was good that a flexible format was allowed. One responder believed it was good that DEQ allowed for individual questions and answers after the meeting. Another asked if you just came to this meeting, how can people access information from previous meetings? Responses to Tell us how you found out about the meeting Email from the MDOT after asked about it. Letter from Sierra Club. From the Wayne State and the DEQ website. Rhonda Anderson (2). Detroit News. Flyer (6) – one person added “at my door” and one person added “delivered to my home”. SDEV staff. Working with Sierra Club. An email. Church (2). From a bridge committee member. Responses to what was best about the meeting Respect to hear community concerns and allow people to vent. That people were able to express themselves and their concerns (3). The MDEQ showed up and listened (3). The printouts at the air table in different languages. Enjoyed the candor of the meeting. Very interesting. The amount of information. The voice of the people was heard and believed that Mr. Chester was sincere in his concern and commitment to establish better communication. When the DEQ agreed to have regular meetings. Meeting active people in the community. Personal interaction with folks after the meeting. Use of moderator to keep meeting on track and the Director recognizing when to step in.

91

The meeting format provided the audience members an opportunity to express their concerns and vent their emotions. The venting was a necessary step towards the DEQ building trust in the community. Responses what could have been changed to make the meeting experience better More time. Continue meetings at least twice per year. The DEQ be less defensive. Better coordination – there was another meeting at the same time. Did not get my question answered. Not Marathon spokesman – had an attitude. A PowerPoint presentation that is helpful to audience. Better method of informing residents about the meeting (this person got info from “bridge committee” member). Recorded notes or minutes. Concrete evidence. I think that future meetings will be more productive by using an informational open house format with more one on one contact with the DEQ staff in order to build trust, defuse hostility and minimize the potential for grand standing. Small group meetings between the DEQ, Sierra Club, local activists and community members would probably be less hostile and more productive. I recommend pursuing these alternatives for future meetings before doing another town hall meeting. I’d hate to see this meeting be the last attempt at collaboration with NGOs and local community groups. It would be a mistake for the DEQ to not have any more meetings with the community now that we started this process. That being said, I was personally frustrated by the poor coordination and communication with Sierra Club and the number of last minute changes to the meeting location, format and set up. The DEQ staff adapted well however. I understand that our options were quite limited by Director Chester wanting to have a Town Hall meeting format and also by our handing over so much of the control over the meeting to Sierra Club. I think future meetings will work better if we play to the strengths of our various groups, i.e., let Sierra Club get people to attend the meeting and the DEQ has more control over the set up and format of the meeting, with input from Sierra Club. I don’t think that this meeting was as good of a test of PPT as I would have liked. An informal informational presentation and question/answer session before hand probably would have worked better, but the Director and other key DEQ staff were on a tour of the area led by the local Sierra Club organizer. Maybe the 2009 academy class will have additional opportunities to test PPT and refine our recommendations.

92

APPENDIX H

ADDITIONAL PPT OBSERVATIONS

AT AIR QUALITY DIVISION PUBLIC INFORMATION

MEETING FOR THE SYNAGRO PROJECT

93

Synagro Project Public Involvement Planning Meeting October 22nd, 2008 at the Neighborhood House, 420 Leigh, Detroit

In an effort to move towards a more collaborative public participation process, the DEQ AQD invited community leaders from Delray and the surrounding areas of Detroit to meet and participate in a pubic participation planning strategy session. This was in regards to the pending permit application for the Synagro Biosolids Incinerator near the Detroit Waste Water Treatment Plant. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the community to key AQD technical staff who would be working on the project, and to encourage and offer an early input opportunity, prior to the permit application being submitted. One of the goals was to seek input into the brief summary document "Background and Common Concerns", which will be used during the formal public comment period. Another goal was to set ground rules and a plan for the public participation process. This meeting itself was a new PPT not previously employed by the AQD. In an effort to provide the application documents to the public, the AQD decided to also make the documents available on the internet. This was the first test of the new PPT by the AQD. This process allowed discussions with community leaders at an early stage of the process, in an effort to improve outreach and community involvement. The DEQ has found that it is easier to include public comments in the process if the comments are received early in the process, as opposed to near the decision deadline. This meeting was unusual because there were discussions on the pubic participation aspects of the project prior to the application being received. It was decided that improvements could be made to advance a collaborative effort, based on two public meetings and two public hearings related to the Marathon air quality permit held earlier in 2008, near this community. Even with that effort, some people in the community were looking for improvements in the DEQ public participation process. At this Synagro outreach meeting the DEQ received feedback on how to change PPT so that the local community could be more involved. The following local organizations attended the meeting and were encouraged to provide informal comments to assist the AQD in identifying issues of concern:

• Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision • People's Community Association • Community Benefits Agreement Coalition • Sierra Club • Original Citizens of Detroit • 48217, Inc. • ACCESS • Local Activists

The following comments were received at the meeting:

• The applications are sometimes too technical for some people to understand. A longer educational process is needed for the community. A DEQ technical person must be available to help explain the permit, and work with the community. The DEQ needs to explain where the public comments would be effective in the permit review and decision process.

• The community needs a statement from the DEQ that clearly explains the proposed impact on the air quality, water quality, and their quality of life in any other way, such as noise and traffic. They want a statement that describes the impact to them in the nearby community.

94

They want to know how this project will affect them. Educate the citizens on how the permit will affect them in a way that is relevant to them. Will discharges increase or change in a way that will affect them? Will there be odors, noise, or pollutants that will affect their health?

• The DEQ should communicate the process in a way that is understandable to the public. It would help to coordinate a tour of the existing facility if possible with the DEQ, facility operators, and the citizens. This would help the citizens understand what is proposed.

• The citizens want health studies on the potential pollutant impacts. They need a cumulative impact analysis that evaluates the health impacts of the existing area pollutants in addition to any proposed pollutants. The DEQ needs to address finger pointing by facility operators who try to justify a discharge by stating that others are discharging similar pollutants.

• The citizens asked the DEQ if the facility would conduct an environmental justice evaluation.

This is not a statutory requirement but if asked early in the process the facility may volunteer to provide the analysis during the DEQ review process.

In response to community concerns, the air permit application has now been placed on the DEQ AQD internet. This application has not been reviewed and is subject to much change before it is ready for the formal public comment documents. The AQD will also seek the community's input in reviewing at least one public comment document to make it as understandable as possible.

95

APPENDIX I

MATRIX TOOL

96

The matrix tool is the Excel file associated with this project report called “matrix tool”.

97

APPENDIX J

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

IMPROVEMENT OF THREE SPECIFIC

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSES

and

STRENGTHS OF PPT INCLUDED IN THE MATRIX TOOL

98

Formal Public Hearings: Strengths:

• Required by many statutes. • Attendance cards create a record of who attended the hearing. • The administrative record includes a recording of the hearing and written comments

submitted at or subsequent to the hearing. • Skilled hearing officers can conduct orderly public hearings.

Weaknesses:

• The formal public hearing statement is too long and legalistic for most audience members to comprehend.

• The formal public hearing format does not allow the agency to answer questions from the audience.

• Audience members may not have access to copies of the statute, administrative rules, permit application, and other supporting documentation in advance of the public hearing.

• Audience members do not know the permit review criteria. • The general public does not know how to make substantive comments on the proposed

project. • Many audience members mistakenly suppose that the permit decision will be based on

the popularity of the proposed project. • If the hearing officer loses control of the hearing, the hearing can degenerate into

grandstanding by audience members or verbal conflicts between audience members or between audience members and the agency representatives.

• Making audience members stand in front of the audience to speak into a microphone and have their comments recorded can intimidate some people.

• The audience’s trust level is low—the audience often concludes that the agency’s decision has already been made and the public hearing has no impact on the decision.

• More information is often conveyed to the audience by agency staff staying after the conclusion of the formal public hearing to answer any questions from the audience.

• Attendance varies based on the nature of the project and the effectiveness of the public notice of the public hearing.

Suggestions for improvements:

• Shorten the formal hearing statement by providing summaries of the statute, administrative rules and permit review criteria as handouts.

• Provide the public with access to the statute, administrative rules, permit review criteria, permit application and supporting documentation ahead of the formal public hearing via web site postings.

• Hold informal question and answer sessions right before or separate, but in advance of, the formal public hearing.

• Formal public hearings for large, complex or controversial projects should be held in conjunction with, and after, formal public informational meetings and/or informational open houses.

99

Formal Public Informational Meetings: Strengths:

• An administrative record can be created by recording the meeting and having the audience fill out attendance cards.

• The agency has more flexibility to tailor its presentation to the agency’s needs, the project’s characteristics and the audience’s needs.

• A question and answer session can be built into the public meeting format. • This public meeting format is less intimidating to the audience than the formal public

hearing. • Summaries of the statute, administrative rules and permit review criteria can be

incorporated into the agency’s presentation and/or be available to the audience as handouts.

• Skilled staff can conduct orderly public informational meetings. • Well run public informational meetings can result in a fairly high level of trust by the

audience. • Good for large or complex projects. • Can be conducted before and/or separate from a formal public hearing. • Multiple public informational meetings can be held at various phases of lengthy projects.

Weaknesses:

• The general public does not know how to make substantive comments on the proposed project.

• Many audience members mistakenly suppose that the agency’s decision will be based on the popularity of the proposed project.

• If the moderator loses control of the meeting, the meeting can degenerate into grandstanding by audience members or verbal conflicts between audience members or between audience members and the agency representatives.

• Making audience members stand in front of the audience to speak into a microphone and have their comments recorded can intimidate some people.

• The audience’s trust level can still be fairly low if they believe that the agency’s decision has already been made.

• This format may be too labor intensive for small projects. • Attendance varies on the nature of the project and the effectiveness of the public notice

of the informational meeting. Suggestions for improvements:

• Provide the public with access to agency presentations, statute, administrative rules, permit review criteria, permit application and supporting documentation ahead of the formal public hearing via web site postings.

• Lengthy projects with multiple phases or large and complex projects should have multiple public informational meetings geared toward the specific phases or aspects of the project.

100

Informational Open Houses: Strengths:

• Good for controversial projects to defuse the audience’s hostility. • Informational material can be displayed as posters and available as handouts. • Agency staff can be stationed throughout the meeting location to answer questions. • One on one contact between agency staff and individuals creates a high level of trust. • Can be conducted before and/or separate from a formal public hearing. • Multiple informational open houses can be held at various phases of lengthy projects.

Weaknesses:

• Very labor intensive. • Attendance varies on the nature of the project and the effectiveness of the public notice

of the informational open house. • No administrative record is created.

101

Strengths for Each Public Participation Technique in Matrix Tool Produced by the Public Participation Techniques Team

2008 Leadership Academy The following paragraphs describe the strengths for each public participation technique. This document can be used to help staff choose the most appropriate public participation techniques for each issue or project. Formal Meetings: Formal public hearing recording comments from the public for the administrative record: The public hearing is required by some statutes. The hearing is inclusive of the public by providing a forum for to give a description of the issues to the public and allowing each person to state comments and opinions. Public meeting with presentation and question and answer (Q & A) session: The public meeting will provide a feedback loop process to inform the public of the issues and decision process. A meeting is inclusive of the public and will promote transparency and build trust. This method can help the agency to gain relevant information about the issues. Public meeting with presentation and panel discussion for Q & A: The public meeting will provide a feedback loop process to inform the public of the issues and decision process. A panel discussion can aid in the dissemination of relevant information. A meeting is inclusive of the public and will promote transparency and build trust. This method can help the agency to gain relevant information about the issues. Sunshine Meeting: Administrators do everything in their power to have the public understand their work as they do it e.g., updates, progress reports. This meeting is inclusive of the public and will promote transparency and build trust. Web based interactive tools for allowing public comment on specific sections of documents: The web based comment process will build trust by allowing the public to be intimately involved in the comment process. This will enhance their understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion if they are instructed to comment under the parameters allowed by the law. This will also aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. Provide representatives from other divisions/departments that may be relevant to project: Representatives from other departments or divisions can help to enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This can help to build trust if the right people are present to provide answers to the questions. Have translator for deaf or non-English speaking populations: A translator will enhance diversity among stakeholders, participants and the public, and enhance the understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion for those people in need of a translator. Provide PPT training to staff: Proper staff training in public participation will enhance all aspects of the public participation process including building trust, disseminating information, and receiving relevant information.

102

Select meeting locations and times which allow for inclusion of underserved groups and persons with disabilities: Meeting locations for underserved groups will enhance diversity among stakeholders, participants and the public, and enhance the understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion for those people in need of special accommodations. Registration table with staff greeters: Staff greeters at a registration table can start the dialogue with the public and encourage the public to write questions on cards. Staff can also record questions at that time. This can start the process of building trust. Having the audience write their questions on index cards to be read during the Q & A session: This method is less stressful for the audience than making them come up to a microphone in front of the audience. The index cards method is inclusive of the public who do not want to speak in front of the agency or in public. Agency staff to record questions in writing prior to the meeting which will then be read during the Q & A session: This method could allow questions by those unwilling or unable to ask a question in writing or publicly. Writing comments on a projected image as people give them: This recording method of comments and questions during a meeting will enhance the public and the agency understanding of the issues of most concern due to the visual format. This will aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. This method can also be used to identify the communication point persons from the agency. Write questions on a flip board as they come up - answer at the end: This recording method of comments and questions during a meeting will enhance the public and the agency understanding of the issues of most concern due to the visual format. This will aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. This method can also be used to identify the communication point persons from the agency. Visual aides and other informational materials to improve public understanding of the issues and process: The visual aides at meetings or hearings can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion by presenting information visually. The visual aides are helpful especially if complex maps and diagrams are needed and to allow large audiences the ability to see the information. The visual aides can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Distribute and collect evaluation forms: Evaluation forms ensure that the public can provide feedback on the effectiveness of the public participation process. Provide contact cards with key contacts: The contact cards will identify the communication point persons from the agency. By directing communication to the most knowledgeable people on the topic of concern, this process can be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency and enhance the one person’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. Provide clear explanation of project impacts (health, well being, etc.): Providing information in this way will enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method of providing information will also build trust.

103

Providing timely, balanced, and objective information on the problem, alternatives considered, and solutions reached: By providing information in this way the public understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion will be enhanced. This method of providing information will also build trust. Group Interaction: Informational open house meeting with agency staff at information booths and/or tables for one on one discussions: This method is good for controversial projects and topics because it will provide a personal level feedback loop process to inform the public of the issues and decision process. The one on one discussions are inclusive of the public and will promote transparency and build trust. This method can help the agency to gain relevant information about the issues. Agency provided training to outside interest groups: Providing information in this way will enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method of providing information will also build trust. Incorporation of soft PPT (meeting location, seating, audio-visual, interpreters, sign language, etc.): Consideration of the layout and operational details of a meeting location will enhance diversity among stakeholders, participants and the public, and enhance the understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion especially for those people in need of special accommodations. Informal meetings with small groups (social networking): The small informal meetings format has been found to be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency. These meetings can also enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion due to the casual conversational modes of communication. These meetings aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. The meeting format can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Addressing targeted audiences: Discussions with targeted audiences have been found to be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency. These meetings can also enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion due to the targeted interaction. These meetings aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. The meeting format can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Staff making follow up site visits in response to comments received: This can enhance the public’s trust in the agency and will help the agency gain information relevant to the issues. This can greatly enhance the public’s understanding of the issues and provide a feedback loop if the public is able to participate in the follow up visit to the area of concern. Telephone conversations: The telephone conversation can be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency and enhance the one person’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can be helpful for working with a leader of a public organization that is particularly interested in the issue or decision.

104

E-mails: E-mails can enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion, and build trust if the leaders of an interested organization or enough people in the public organization receive the messages. E-mails can aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. E-mails can also identify the communication point persons from the agency. Meetings with individuals: Meetings with individuals can be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency and enhance the one person’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can also be helpful for working with a leader of a public organization that is particularly interested in the issue or decision. Public speaking tours: These lectures or meetings can enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This will enhance the public’s trust in the agency. The lectures can also be used to identify the communication point persons from the agency. Use outside facilitator: An outside facilitator can help to build trust in the public participation process if they can trust the organization connected to the facilitator. Examples include local leaders such as politicians or religious leaders. Faculty from a university also builds trust. Tapping into existing networks, organizations, and institutions (Staff meetings, clubs, service groups, tribal governments, schools, community organizations, other government organizations): Coordination with other organizations can help to build trust in the public participation process provided they trust the other organization. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the public. This can help to identify solutions and/or solve problems and achieve consensus. Roving Ambassador making contact with visitors at parks, campgrounds, field stations, etc. and disseminating information: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This will also enhance the public’s trust in the agency. The ambassador can also identify issues through these contacts. Employing an advocate on behalf of an interest group: Coordination with other organizations can help to build trust in the public participation process if they can trust the other organization. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the public. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Running trap lines with a regular schedule to touch base with interest groups, elected officials, agency officials, and opinion leaders: Coordination with other organizations can help to build trust in the public participation process if they can trust the other organization. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the public. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Identify opinion leaders, those who are listened to and whose counsel you trust; meet with and/or visit by phone as often as possible: Coordination with the opinion leaders of other organizations can help to build trust in the public participation process if they can trust the other organization. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the public. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus.

105

Negotiation and conflict mediation: Mediation is an important mechanism for consensus. Sounding boards: Groups of people (citizens, employees, etc.) for testing ideas: Discussions in a sounding board environment can help to build trust in the public participation process. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Brainstorming sessions: For gathering many comments and ideas without any value judgments: Discussions in a brainstorming session can help to build trust in the public participation process. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders. This can help to identify problems and solutions. This method can help to solve problems and achieve consensus. Stakeholder group: Work out action plans to accomplish specific activities: Coordination with the stakeholder groups can help to build trust in the public participation process. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the stakeholder groups. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Consensus building: Facilitate diverse groups getting together to develop mutual solutions: Coordination in a consensus building forum can help to build trust in the public participation process. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the stakeholder groups. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Identifying and segmenting public and groups affected by issue: Coordination with the stakeholder groups affected by the issue can help to build trust in the public participation process. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the stakeholder groups. This can help to identify issues, solve problems and achieve consensus. Collaborative effort before a permit is received: Reaching out to the public in a collaborative effort prior to receiving a permit builds trust and can enhance the diversity among stakeholders, participants and the public. This collaboration can also enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion before rumors can control the public’s opinion. Collaboration can aid the agency's ability to gain information regarding the public’s greatest concerns early in the process so they can be considered and addressed. The collaboration format can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Partnership building: Using local citizens/organizations for projects meeting mutual objectives: Coordination with the stakeholder groups can help to build trust in the public participation process, and enhance their understanding of the process and issues. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the stakeholder groups. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. Citizen advisory groups intended to work collaboratively on each aspect of decisions: Coordination with citizen advisory groups can help to build trust in the public participation process, and enhance their understanding of the process and issues. This will enhance diversity among stakeholders and will identify communication point people from the stakeholder groups. This can help to identify solution and or solve problems and achieve consensus. This method provides transparency by providing a feedback loop to inform the public of the basis for the agency decision.

106

Information Dissemination: Mass mailings: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can inform people about a pending meeting or hearing. The mailings can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Providing information on the specific issue or decision on the agency web site: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can inform people about a pending meeting or hearing. The web site can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion by answering the most important questions and the questions of greatest interest to the public. The document can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Power Point Presentations: These presentations at meetings or hearings can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion by presenting information visually. These presentations are helpful especially if complex maps and diagrams are needed. They also allow large audiences the ability to see the information. The presentations can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Agency publications: These publications can provide a feedback loop if the important issues or decision making process is included in the publications. The publications can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Web site postings of program information, proposed statute or rule amendments and permit applications: This method will provide a notice of pending decisions and can enhance the public’s understanding of the process the agency must follow. The web site can identify the communication point persons from the agency. E-mail list server notices: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion by answering the most important questions and the questions of greatest interest to the public. The notices can identify the communication point persons from the agency. General education sessions: These education sessions can enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This will enhance the public’s trust in the agency. The sessions can also be used to identify the communication point persons from the agency. Newsletters: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can inform people about a pending meeting or hearing. The mailings can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Adequate notice of involvement opportunities at key decision points: Notices of involvement prior to each key decision point in a project will enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method of notice will also build trust.

107

Public information materials: brochures, display boards, fact sheets, fliers, news articles, grocery bag inserts, video tapes, posters, etc.: This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. This method can inform people about a pending meeting or hearing. The mailings can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Field information stations for information dissemination: These information stations will enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. The stations will help enhance diversity among stakeholders and participants. This will also enhance the public trust in the agency. Reviewing and monitoring media to learn about values, priorities, issues, and concerns of interest groups: This method will help to identify issues and problems. It will also enhance diversity among stakeholders, participants, and the public. Identifying emerging issues: This method will help to identify issues and problems. It will also enhance diversity among stakeholders, participants, and the public. Seminars: The seminar method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. Seminars can enhance diversity among participants and build trust in the agency. Brown bag lunch series: The lunch series method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. Seminars can enhance diversity among participants and build trust in the agency. Field trips - Show me trips: Field trips are particularly useful to help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion. Field trips can enhance diversity among participants and build trust in the agency. Blogs: Blogs can be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency and enhance the public understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion due to the back and forth interaction of ideas, concerns, questions and information. Blogs can aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. Blogs can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Social networking web sites (e.g. Facebook, My Space): Social networking through web sites can be a good way to build the public’s trust with the agency. Web based networking can also enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion due to the back and forth interaction of ideas, concerns, questions and information. Web based networking can aid the agency's ability to gain information relevant to the rule making, permit decision, etc. The Web networking format can identify the communication point persons from the agency. Staff responding to written questions or comments received from the public: This method will provide a feedback loop process to inform the public of the issues and decision process. This method can help enhance the public’s understanding of the process and/or topic of discussion by answering questions and providing the most important information in written form.

108

Feedback: Accepting written comments in response to public notices of permit applications, proposed rule amendments, etc.: The written public comments are required by some statutes and can provide information to the agency relevant to the issues or decision. Accepting public comments via web site: This method can make the process of providing written comments easier for some members of the public, so it is inclusive of those people who prefer to work through the internet. This method can provide information to the agency relevant to the issues or decision. Providing for comments and evaluation: Evaluation comments will provide feedback on the effectiveness of the process. This will help to identify problems in the public participation process and solutions to those problems. This evaluation will also enhance the public’s trust in the agency. Other: Staff Training (communication skills, PPT): Training in this area will help in all aspects of the public participation process. The public will have a better understanding of the process and issues due to the more informative communication from the agency. The public will have greater trust in the agency and will then be able to work together with the agency to identify and solve the issues. This will help to depolarize issues and achieve consensus. Using variety of audio-visual materials to disseminate information: Using a variety of audio-visual techniques will enhance the public’s understanding of the process and or topic of discussion. This can enhance the diversity of stakeholders because of the larger audio and visual impact. Communication techniques and skills (Active listening, recording, documentation, lay terminology, Braille, TTY, bilingual): Good communication skills will help in all aspects of the public participation process. In particular good communication will help the public have a better understanding of the process and issues due to the more informative communication from the agency. The public will have greater trust in the agency and will then be able to work together with the agency to identify and solve the issues.

109

APPENDIX K

TRAINING IDEAS AND OPPORTUNITIES

110

STAFF TRAINING IDEAS

• Professional Development Meetings (formerly In-service sessions). • Special trainings in District Offices (perhaps by MSU Extension). • Cross training by attending/assisting with public hearings. • e-Training/Civil Service Courses. • Shadowing. • Brown Bag lunches. • Tips on the Intranet. • Showing taped versions of training sessions as part of new employee orientation. • Other types of customer service training for new employees – part of 1st year requirement.

Other ideas:

• Encourage public participation oriented training as part of training plan each year. • Specially train facilitators in each of the 3 Departments.

o Have facilitators train other staff. • Specific training on the Matrix and effective techniques. • Develop matrix of training requirements by classification. • Develop training teams in DEQ and MDA, modeling DNR’s existing team. • Have future leadership academy members develop training modules on PPT. • Employee Newsletter.

Applicable Types of Training:

• Conflict management. • Communication skills. • Collaboration. • Facilitation. • Group processes. • Public speaking – Presentations. • Accessibility Training (partner with Civil Rights).

111

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Applicable Civil Service Courses: COMMCS045 Having the Tough Conversations MGMTCS087 Resolving Conflict MGMTCS026 Building Trust by Avoiding Trust Traps & Strengthening the Foundation VALUEOG002 Moving Trust Forward VALUEOG005 Speed of Trust VALUEOG007 Communication that Moves People WORKCS012 Customer Service Begins at Home COMMCS043 Dealing Successfully with Difficult Customers VALUEOG003 But We’re the Government, We Don’t Make Widgets COMMS042 Leading Effective Meetings LAWCS006 Open Meetings Act MGMTCS025 Essentials of Leadership Applicable Quick Knowledge Courses: Applying Leadership Basics Appreciating Personality Differences Basics of Effective Communication Basics of Effective Selling Building Strong Customer Relationships Building Trust and Credibility Conflict Intervention Creating a Strong Leadership Team Dealing with Difficult Customers Developing Assertiveness Ethics in Business Influencing Others Keys to Effective Listening Leading Effective Meetings Leading Effective Teams Managing Disagreement Managing Negative People Managing Stress Measuring Customer Satisfaction Presentation Skills Providing Effective Feedback Recognizing and Responding to Signals of Violence Solving Problems as a Team Successful Negotiation Telephone Skills for Quality Customer Service Valuing Diversity

112

APPENDIX L

RESOURCES

113

RESOURCES

1. Communicating with the Public, Making it Work for You. A resource for DEQ Staff, Fall 2005.

2. Public Participation Methods: Evolving and Operationalizing an Evaluation Framework

(Summary Project Report), Dr. Lynn Frewer, Dr. Gene Rowe, Roy Marsh and Catherine Reynolds.

3. Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen’s Guide. 4. Engaging the American People, EPA Public Participation Policy Review Workgroup. 5. Public Involvement Handbook, A Citizen’s Guide, DEQ. 6. Public Meeting Checklist, RRD. 7. Tips for Preparing a Public Participation Plan Pursuant to the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, revised 2/1/06. 8. RCRA Public Participation Manual, USEPA, 1996 edition. 9. Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation at the USEPA. Lessons Learned, Barriers

and Innovative Approaches. Jan. 2001. 10. EPA’s Public Involvement Policy. 11. EPA’s public involvement homepage. 12. DEQ Model Public hearing Statement, June 17, 2004. 13. EAC Recommendations, Public Involvement in the DEQ. Feb. 2004. 14. DEQ Discussion Summary – Organizational Development to Improve Communications

Seminar, Oct. 2006. 15. Summary of Lessons Learned, 6/05 EPA Workshop for DEQ Lansing Staff. 16. DEQ Policy 01-004 Administrative Rules Promulgation 2/15/07. 17. DEQ Policy 09-007 Policy on Public Involvement in Department Programs and Activities. 18. DEQ Policy 09-008 Public Involvement in the Contested Case Process. 19. Air Quality Public Participation Procedures for Renewable Operating Permits, 6/29/07. 20. Public Participation/Noticing Requirements of the DEQ RRD. 21. Implementation Plan of the DEQ for the Environmental Advisory Council Recommendations

to Improve Public Involvement, FY 2005, November 2004.

114

22. Draft Improvements to Public Hearing Process, 2004. 23. Check It Out, Planning Your Accessible Meeting, this is for being handicap accessible. 24. Working Effectively with Angry Citizens and Practical Techniques for Successful Public

Meetings, 1994. 25. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3306-185835--,00.html.

1) Public Involvement in the DEQ, Recommendations from the Environmental Advisory Council February 2004. 2) Implementation Plan of the Department of Environmental Quality for the Environmental Advisory Council Recommendations to Improve Public Involvement Fiscal Year 2005, November 2004. 3) Implementation Report of the Department of Environmental Quality for the Environmental Advisory Council Recommendations to Improve Public Involvement, August, 2004.

26. The Detroit River International Crossing Study Prepared by U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Michigan Department of Transportation.

27. How Were Local, State and Federal Agencies and the Public Involved? Making a

Difference: A Guide to Evaluation Public Participation in Central Government. Written by Diane Warbutton with Richard Wilson and Elspeth Rainbow.

28. FCW.COM. Web 2.0: Texas City Tests E-Democracy. Fort Worth Looks to Citizen

Engagement Using Workgroup Collaboration Software. By Larry Stevens, April 21, 2008.

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3306-185835--,00.html

115

APPENDIX M

RESULTS OF PPT TESTS AT

DECEMBER 18, 2008 LWMD FORMAL HEARING

116

Testing Public Participation Techniques At a Public Informational Meeting and Formal Public Hearing

For a Proposed Marina Project

The DEQ-LWMD held a public informational meeting and formal public hearing for marina construction and operating permit applications (DEQ file numbers 08-14-0058-P and 08-14-0001-M) from Signature Development for the Sanctuary at Christiana Lake project. The public informational meeting and formal public hearing were held at the Ontwa Township Hall in Cass County on December 18, 2008. The meeting location and room arrangements were typical for many LWMD public hearings. Fifty chairs were arranged in several rows facing the U-shaped table where the township board meets. A microphone was set up at the front left corner of the audience for people to make their comments. Two microphones and a tape recorder were set up on the board table for use by the LWMD staff. Attendance cards were placed at the entrance to the meeting room for the audience to indicate their names and whether they wished to make a statement during the formal public hearing. Several PPT were tested at this public informational meeting and hearing:

• An informal public informational meeting was scheduled one-half hour before the start of the formal public hearing to allow the LWMD staff to explain the format and purpose of the public informational meeting and public hearing, explain the permit review criteria in the statutes and administrative rules administered by the LWMD, and to answer questions from the audience.

• The public notice for the formal public hearing included a notice about the public informational meeting.

• The DEQ staff wore nametags with their first names in a large font. • The DEQ staff greeted the audience when they entered the meeting room. • A table at the entrance to the meeting room had informational handouts with

descriptions of the statutes regulating the proposed project, copies of the applicable sections of the statute and administrative rules for the inland lakes and streams program, a description of the administrative appeals process, and the DEQ Public Involvement Handbook: A Citizen’s Guide.

• To help create a more informal atmosphere during the public informational meeting, the LWMD staff sat on one end of the U-shaped table or stood at the side of the audience while making their presentations and answering questions.

• The current formal public hearing opening statement used by the LWMD contains information on the permit review criteria and the administrative appeals process responsive Environmental Advisory Council recommendations. However, feedback from both public hearing audiences and the DEQ staff is that the current opening statement is lengthy and contains too much information for audiences to comprehend. To address this concern, the LWMD hearing officer for the December 18, 2008 hearing used an older, shorter version of the opening statement and supplemented the information with handout materials and other information conveyed during the public informational meeting.

• An audience survey was placed on every chair prior to the start of the public informational meeting and the audience was requested to complete and turn in the survey before they left.

117

There were approximately 45 people in the audience for both the public informational meeting and the public hearing. The DEQ staff received 24 surveys following the end of the public hearing. The response rate (53%) for this survey was significantly higher than our audience surveys at other public hearings and informational meetings. A blank copy of the survey, a survey responses summary, and a statistical analysis of the responses are included following this narrative. The following conclusions can be drawn from the audience survey:

• The public notice and public hearing announcement processes are not as effective as they could be in terms of notifying interested parties of the proposed project. Publishing notice of public hearings only in small local newspapers and errors in the permit applications hamper the DEQ efforts to convey information on a proposed project to the public.

• The audience appreciated being greeted by the DEQ staff as they entered the meeting room.

• Holding a public informational meeting before the formal public hearing and having informational handouts at the entrance successfully conveyed both the format and the purpose of the public informational meeting and the public hearing.

• Discussing the permit review criteria during the public informational meeting and copies of the permit review criteria as informational handouts increased the public’s understanding of how the DEQ will make its permit decision.

• 83% of the audience members responding to the survey felt that holding the public informational meeting before the public hearing was beneficial.

The following is a quote from one of the surveys: “We have attended many public hearings under local venues (multiple MI. locale) and found this venue was far more efficient and respectful and informative.”

118

Questionnaire for Feedback on the Effectiveness of Public Participation Techniques

Background: This questionnaire has been developed for a team project for the Michigan DEQ/MDA/DNR Leadership Academy, for the purpose of identifying ways in which the public is or could be involved in government processes, and to test and recommend effective public participation techniques. This project is focusing strictly on public participation techniques related to controversial, large and complex projects, or administrative rule making hearings. Team members will use this information to better understand what is working well, and what improvements could be made to future public hearings. Thanks in advance for taking the time to fill out the questionnaire. We value your input! Directions: Considering the informal public information meeting and formal public hearing held on December 18, 2008 for Signature Development, marina construction permit application number 08-14-0058-P, and the Sanctuary at Christiana Lake, marina operating permit application number 08-14-0001-M, please rate the following statements on a scale of 1 – 6. You may write your opinions in the space below each question. If you have no opinion, circle #7 for “don’t know”. The public notice and notices of the formal public hearing and public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 informational meeting were effective in notifying interested parties about this public hearing and public informational meeting. Comments: I appreciated being greeted by DEQ staff when I entered the meeting room. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: The registration process was efficient. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Describe how attendees were registered: Participants understood the formats of the public informational meeting and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the formal public hearing. Comments: Participants understood the purposes of the public informational meeting and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 formal public hearing. Comments:

Agree Strongly agree

Some-what agree

Some-what

disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

Don’t know

119

Participants understood the permit review criteria in the statutes and/or administrative rules for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 proposed project. Comments: The formats of the public informational meeting and the formal public hearing gave everyone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ample opportunity to be heard. Comments: There was courteous interaction between speakers and hearing officers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: There was courteous interaction between speakers representing differing opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: There was a good mix of viewpoints. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: DEQ gained new or clarifying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 information that will help it make its decisions on these permit applications. Comments: The public informational meeting and public hearing were successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please explain your ranking of the previous statement about success.___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Considering this public informational meeting and formal public hearing: Was holding a public informational meeting before the start of the formal public hearing beneficial? YES NO NO OPINION Comments: Were representatives of the permit requester present (if applicable)? YES NO If yes, was this a positive or negative influence on the proceedings? POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL Were elected governmental officials present? LOCAL STATE NONE

120

Please suggest how DEQ can improve its next public hearing.____________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

Please return your completed questionnaire to the DEQ staff before you leave tonight’s public informational meeting and public hearing. If you would like more time to consider and complete this questionnaire, please send the completed questionnaire to Jim Milne no later than December 29, 2008 by fax, 517-373-6917, or e-

mail, [email protected].

The Public Participation Techniques team members are Larry Bean, Scott Miller, Jim Milne, Debbie Smith Ostrander, Chuck Thomas, and Bob Wagner.

Team Sponsors: JoAnn Merrick, DEQ Executive Division and Bryce Feighner, DEQ Air Quality Division

Thank you again for your participation!

mailto:[email protected]

2008 deq/mda/dnr leadership academy identifying and ......shared her knowledge and experience, and...

Documents