Portland Water Bureau (XLC)

November 16, 1998 Meeting #2 Summary

Project XL for Communities Sponsor/Stakeholder meeting for
Portland's Lead Hazard Reduction Program (LHRP)
Meeting Summary
Meeting #2, November 16, 1998 , 9:00am-1:00pm

In Attendance:

Facilitator - Stacey Drake Edwards
Sponsors - Bert Seierstad, Rosemary Menard, Stacey Drake Edwards, Curt Ireland
Co-sponsors - John Dougherty, Chris Johnson, Dave Leland, Scott Schnoor,
Michael Stimson, Stephanie Weise
EPA Stakeholders - Bill Glasser, Kristina Heinemann
Direct Participant Stakeholders - Jerry Arnold, Dean Fritzke, Ann Kimerling,
Alfonso Lopez, LeRoy Patton, Tom Penpraze, Harvey Rice, Marty Wegner,
Lore Wintergreen, Damon Whitehead
Convening Support Services - Elaine Hallmark

The following were presented (and achieved!!!) as Desired Outcomes for Today s Meeting:

Consensus on effective and parallel efforts for both more broadly-based stakeholder involvement, and a cohesive group of stakeholders to be directly involved in this FPA process
Consensus on the specific Decision-Making process we will use for the development of the FPA

INTRODUCTIONS
All meeting participants introduced themselves. There were some new individuals who had joined the group and others who were unable to attend the first meeting. Joan Brown-Kline could not be present for this meeting, but the intent is to have her continue to be a part of this effort and provide facilitation services.

SETTING THE CONTEXT OF THE MEETING
Meeting participants received two handouts:

"Flow Chart for the Portland XLC Final Project Agreement efforts" from the Water Bureau, and
a flow chart from the EPA emphasizing the difference in timeframes of the FPA Development portion of the project (6-12 months) and the Implementation portion of the Lead Hazard Reduction Program (1-5 years)

These flow charts were presented to provide the group with a more comprehensive picture of the steps in this process, and the tasks which will need to be completed. It will be important for the group to focus its efforts in a common direction. EPA personnel emphasized that stakeholder involvement needs to be a part of project implementation, with an understanding that project monitoring and evaluation is necessarily a longer process of 1-5 years.

Rosemary related that those initially involved as stakeholders at the conceptual stage of this project were the Water Bureau, Oregon Health Division, Multnomah County Health Department and the Water Quality Advisory Committee (a committee that advises the Water Bureau and the Portland City Council on water quality issues; the committee incorporates a public forum into its format). These stakeholders asked themselves what would result if resources were applied in a way that was different from what was specified in the Lead and Copper Rule, and in a way which also achieved significant or improved health benefit. The result was a conceptual program that was predicted to achieve greater environmental benefits through an alternative means of complying with the Rule. The Water Bureau is very committed to this program, and has found this community-based effort to be an important effort from which the Bureau has learned a great deal. This type of program is not the kind of program that utilities usually undertake.

The group discussed the need for the Lead Hazard Reduction Program to have appropriate levels of stakeholder involvement, and agreed that these efforts could proceed in a parallel manner and be effective. The FPA Development group could be a smaller group with a different focus than the larger group of stakeholders who are impacted by the programs and who also need to be involved. The group recognized the need for and the commitment to a broad-based community involvement strategy, with effective communication between critical parties about what is going on. Alfonso identified the Turning Points initiative for the Portland tri-county area as a program with health issues similar to the LHRP. It was agreed that the Outreach and Education efforts for the LHRP and the Comprehensive Lead Plan effort lead by the Urban League are needed elements of an effective solution to lead problems, in addition to stakeholder involvement and feedback by this group as the FPA is developed and implemented.

MODELS FOR EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING
Meeting participants received two handouts:

"Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes, Executive Summary", and
"Decision-Making Process for Developing the Final Project Agreement, and Decision-Making Process for Implementing and Evaluating the XLC Program"

Elaine Hallmark presented this information. Elaine is a subcontractor to the RESOLVE consulting group with whom the EPA has contracted to provide convening support services to XLC Project Sponsors who request such services.

The "Public Consultation and Information Sharing" model and the "Consensus Decision-Making with Stakeholders" alternatives for Decision-Making processes were discussed. The Consultation model is characterized by a group which acts in an advisory capacity to the project sponsors, and the Consensus model is denoted by the group of stakeholders and the project sponsors working in partnership to come to consensus on decisions and outcomes.

It was recognized that another possible decision-making alternative is where the government or government agency facilitates the community in making its own major decisions, and mostly functions in providing the resources to do so.

It will be important to clearly define the role of stakeholders both at this table, and the role of stakeholders at other tables. It was also acknowledged that regardless which Decision-Making process is chosen, the plans for outreach to the broad base of stakeholders in the greater community need to include ways to bring ideas and feedback from this ancillary process back into the FPA process.

The group decided to first identify and come to a common understanding on the types of decisions which this FPA Development group would need to make, and then use that knowledge to come to agreement on the type of Decision-Making process we would use.

TYPES OF DECISIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE MADE
General Categories of Decisions:

Program Composition

Targeting the effort to those areas where we can make a difference; making a focus on risk assessment and prevention
Developing a risk-based program with resources that are available, while also paying attention to the needs of the utilities ratepayers
Prioritization of activities and the allocation of resources
Identification of the reasonable project outcomes to expect
Identification of processes for measuring project outcomes and evaluating the success of the project
Description of the access and stakeholder involvement opportunities throughout the development of the FPA and the implementation of the project
Building in ways to achieve long-term and broad-based stakeholder involvement

HOW Program Enhancements should be made

How to best reach stakeholders
How to best identify appropriate stakeholders
How to know we have included all appropriate stakeholders
How to reach stakeholders in non-traditional home styles (e.g. homeless persons, migratory workers)
How best to gain access to peoples homes for the Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program
How to best use other volunteers in the community
How to communicate in a way that is culturally sensitive
How to identify the cultural needs of each population group
How to send an effective message to the community that lead issues are important
How to ensure that stakeholders have a good comprehension of the program components
How to involve both adults and children (remembering that the target population is identified as children under 7 years of age)

WHAT Program Enhancements should be made

Identification of efficient and effective ways to communicate that are culturally sensitive
Identification of the list of appropriate stakeholders and their cultural needs
Identification of messages to communicate to stakeholders

WORKING TOWARD CONSENSUS ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES WE WILL USE
Project Sponsors clarified that the decision to proceed with the XL process was voluntary, but nonetheless the Water Bureau has seen that the XL process and use of this type of community participation model has produced good benefits in the first year of this program. Therefore, Project Sponsors stated that the Water Bureau would be comfortable with the use of consensus decision-making for most decisions, with the possible exception of issues where there are constraints, such as budgetary issues. On those issues the Water Bureau would feel the need to maintain control. Also, while there are limitations on budget resources, there is flexibility probably in the range of about +5%.

The group then used Elaine s handout and the guidelines for when to use the Consensus and Consultation alternatives for Decision-Making. Group members responded with their observations and concerns.

Use Consensus Decision-Making Processes when:

Serious objections to the final outcome might succeed in blocking implementation, and options exist for addressing the objections.
Group members responses:
-- Yes, this in an issue. It is more so "barriers" than serious objections. Barriers have a relationship to many of the "types of decisions" that were identified today. For example, Project Sponsors would not know how best to communicate with all of the populations of people who would be affected by this project. As a result, the programs would be implemented less than successfully, and the long term effect is that the project could fail.
-- Imposition of time constraints might also become a barrier. The group felt that, in general, more time is needed for community-based efforts than for efforts which do not make an effort to effectively involve stakeholders.
-- As evidenced in today s discussion, the group feels that the barriers are quite well understood, and that a number of ways exist to overcome these barriers.

Strong community ownership of outcome is desired.
Group members responses:
-- Outreach and development of partnerships have been used extensively, and have been demonstrated to be effective.
-- Finding a way to achieve ongoing and strong community ownership of the outcomes of this project is extremely beneficial, and perhaps a requirement for success.

Use Public-Consultation and Information Sharing Processes when:

Issues in proposal are not controversial.
Group members responses:
-- Lead issues are definitely controversial and often evoke strong responses from stakeholders. Emphasis on "prevention" of health problems has been shown to be an effective model for communication of controversial materials.

Public notices do not generate much comment.
Group members responses:
-- Public notices have generated comments and involvement of stakeholders (e.g. Harvey Rice and LeRoy Patton).
-- It is important to once again note that public notices are not the most effective means of communicating to the public about projects such as these. Proactive outreach, and development of relationships and partnerships are much more effective.
-- Outreach and education have already resulted in the receipt of many comments on this project, and in many changes in programs and methods as this project has evolved.

Issues are narrow in scope and don t impact policy concerns.
Group members responses:
-- Lead issues are very broad in scope, especially when taken in light of the wide variety of populations that are affected.
-- The wide variety of issues must have a direct impact on policy concerns if those policies are hoped to be effective.

The group discussed how this project utilizes an organic process, which is very cyclical in nature:

Presentation of Information -- leads to -- Discussion -- leads to -- Participation -- leads to --Delegation of Project Tasks and Building of Partnerships -- which leads back to presentation of additional information, and the cycle continues.

The group agreed that it will be necessary to determine exactly who the signatories to the FPA will be, and the determination of the roles and responsibilities of all signatories during both the development of the FPA and the Implementation of the project.

The group recognized that the Implementation phase of the project will require a different kind of stakeholder involvement from the current process for development of the FPA. Ideas included:

More broad-based involvement at events such as the Lead Summit
Ongoing and periodic involvement with critical parties, gaining their feedback, and making project enhancements as needed
Providing identified, critical stakeholders with periodic (annual?) reports on progress and significant accomplishments of the programs, gaining their feedback, and making project enhancements as needed

AGREEMENT ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES TO BE USED
It was agreed to use the following Decision-Making process for FPA DEVELOPMENT:

We will use the Consensus Decision-Making process whenever possible, and recognize that there would be some few instances when Consensus Decision-Making would not be possible because of certain necessary constraints.
The Water Bureau Project Sponsors will be very honest and straightforward in stating when any constraints become an issue, and will express and communicate clearly these constraints and limitations to stakeholders.
When constraints and limitations are an issue, Water Bureau Project Sponsors will take feedback from the stakeholders into consideration, but will necessarily make those decisions.
Examples of constraints which may affect the Decision-Making process include, but are not limited to, budgetary issues, issues of accountability to ratepayers, and water operations issues.

It was agreed that during FPA IMPLEMENTATION, a combination of Consultation and Consensus processes would be applied, using consensus whenever possible. It was also recognized that during Implementation, it will be very important for Project Sponsors to provide many diverse opportunities for stakeholders to have ongoing access to information on all components of the Lead Hazard Reduction Program as these program components develop and evolve.

NEXT STEPS
It was agreed to use a facilitated consensus process to proceed from this point toward development of a written Final Project Agreement:

Distribute additional information on the project as identified at Meeting #1, and group members will review and provide feedback.
The Water Bureau as Project Sponsor will use the feedback above to develop a DRAFT Final Project Agreement that will be provided to members of this group for review and feedback.
The Project Sponsor will facilitate gathering and responding to feedback, making revisions to the FPA as needed, and assisting the group in coming to consensus on the final draft of the FPA.

Bert will take the lead on facilitating completion of these efforts. The group agreed that setting of critical timelines is necessary, along with commitments by all group members to complete the agreed upon tasks.

Stakeholders present at this meeting all expressed a desire to be a signor of the FPA (either on behalf of their organization or agency, or on behalf on themselves personally). Each Direct Participant will need to determine whether they are signing on behalf of their organization, or for themselves.

It was also suggested that efforts be made to bring a parent of a young child with elevated blood lead levels into this group. Stephanie will access CLEARCorps program records, and see if there is a parent who is interested in this level of involvement.

The current list of Direct Participants will be refined to better indicate who has been, and wants to be, part of this FPA development process. The current list includes some people who have expressed some interest, but have not yet made a firm commitment to be a Direct Participant. Some of these individuals may become Commentors to this process.

It will also be necessary to be very clear about exactly who is involved in each consensus decision, and also in group members knowing when consensus has been achieved:

We will not use voting as a means of determining consensus; we will instead assess the group and ask if we have consensus.
There may be times when group members will need to have a complete understanding of true "consensus". Group members will need to understand that sometimes consensus means asking yourself "Can I live with this?" and understanding that complete agreement on each issue may not be possible.
It will also be necessary to allow enough time for true consensus to be achieved. We will NOT quickly ask the group "Is everyone OK with this?", but will instead present the consensus question clearly to the group, and allow time for the group to comment and come to true consensus.
It will be important for each group member to take the responsibility for finding their voice and stating their concerns clearly.
When providing feedback on the DRAFT FPA, it will be important for group members to be clear about stating their concerns, and making the distinction between concerns related to specific wording in the FPA, and concerns related to specific concepts that are presented.

These above issues will be addressed in the written FPA, as will gathering and presentation of feedback from other stakeholders (e.g. XL Commentors and the General Public).

TIMELINES AND COMMITMENTS
The group agreed to the need for a facilitated process to achieve development of and consensus on the Final Project Agreement.

The group also agreed to a "homework assignment" to facilitate the timely completion of the FPA. Group members agreed to work individually to complete an extensive review of material on the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, and to submit a list of their suggested improvements and enhancements needed for the LHRP.

The November 16 meeting summary, and revised list of contact information for Sponsors and Stakeholders will also be provided to all participants.

The next meeting will be Monday January 25, 1999, 9:00 am - 2:00 pm, at the Lutheran Inner City Ministries facility, 4219 NE Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, in NE Portland, at the corner of MLK and Skidmore.

The group agreed to the timelines and commitments summarized in the following table:

Due Date	Responsible Party	Tasks and Responsibilities
November 30, 1998	Water Bureau (Bert)	Send additional project information for review and feedback to all Stakeholders and Sponsors: -- Agreement on Decision-Making and Consensus-Building Processes -- XL Outreach and Education Plan -- Comprehensive Lead Plan efforts -- Complete list of the Nine XLC Selection Criteria -- EPA Discussion Items for the LHRP
December 14, 1999	ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors	"Review the five items above, AND all information you have previously received about the LHRP. -- Focus your review on: the four components of the LHRP: 1) Water Treatment/Water Quality Monitoring 2) Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program 3) Stakeholder Involvement, Public Education, and Outreach 4) Lead-in-Water Testing and 5) The stakeholder involvement processes for the purposes of developing and implementing the FPA -- Review the 5 issues by asking yourself: "What are your reactions? "What contributions can you make? "What is your level of interest? "What are your suggestions for improvements and enhancements to the LHRP? "Complete your review and provide suggestions for improvements and enhancements to the LHRP to Bert: -- Provide feedback in the form of written comments, questions, or suggestions, or marked-up copies of the documents. -- Send feedback via email, fax, regular mail, or by whatever means work best for you.
January 4, 1999	Water Bureau	"Develop and send DRAFT Final Project Agreement document to all Stakeholders and Sponsors for review and comment.
January 15, 1999	ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors	"Review the DRAFT Final Project Agreement, and provide feedback to Bert.
January 22, 1999	Water Bureau	"Send compilation of feedback on the DRAFT Final Project Agreement to all Sponsors and Stakeholders.
January 25, 1999 9:00 am - 2:00 pm Third XL Sponsor/ Stakeholder meeting	ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors	"Come to the meeting prepared to: -- Discuss the DRAFT Final Project Agreement and the feedback that was received in detail -- Come to consensus on the changes needed and timeframe for producing a Final Draft of the FPA -- Determine timeframe and process for 30-Day Public Comment Period. Note: By this meeting, all Direct Participants, other Stakeholders, Sponsors, and Co-Sponsors should decide whether they will be formally signing the FPA, and whether they are signing on behalf of their organization or for themselves.
To Be Determined	ALL	"Develop Final Draft of the FPA, probably about two weeks after January 25th meeting
To Be Determined	ALL	"30-Day Public Comment Period, probably sometime in February
To Be Determined	ALL	"Formal FPA Signing Ceremony, probably sometime in March

Portland Water Bureau (XLC)

Local Navigation