Thanks Jim....
I did read that Dominion Post piece in Don Strimbeck's daily postings this morning and sent it along with the following message to DEP folks as part of an ongoing discussion with them about such permit meetings....... The public hearings without DEP interacting at all has always been problemmatic, but these new informal conferences are just not a good substitute even for the screaming matches that normally occur with mine permit "hearings" these days... especially re: mountaintop removal hearing in southern WV.
In emailing DEP folks I neglected to mention the additional need for the public to have access and the right to comment AFTER all the technical corrections have been made.... even if that means reopening the public comment period for an additional number of days...... All of that as well as the adequacy/consistency of the email list notices should be brought to the surface again ---- I'm guessing the same players (Rivers, WVHC, Sierra, E-Council) would all be willing to mount that charge again. [Now it's just a matter of carving out the time to do it ....[?]]
Cindy 304-924-5802 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From cindy rank clrank2@gmail.com
toRandy.C.Huffman@wv.gov, "Nixon, Pamela" Pamela.Nixon@wv.gov, "Stottlemyer, Dennis O" Dennis.O.Stottlemyer@wv.gov, "King, John M.S" John.M.S.King@wv.gov, "Clarke, Thomas L" Thomas.L.Clarke@wv.gov, Lewis.A.Halstead@wv.gov, HAROLD.D.WARD@wv.gov dateWed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM subjectpublic hearings and informal conferences mailed-bygmail.com hide details 11:13 AM (1 hour ago) Randy, Pam, Dennis, John, Tom, Lewis and Harold,
Todays Dominion Post editorial [pasted below] is just another reminder of my discussions with some of you after the 'informal conference' re the Keystone permits September 15th..... Public hearings (especially in southern WV) are indeed difficult to take --- and difficult to be a part of, but these informal conferences don't cut it either.
Surely something in between can be arranged --- eg. my suggestions as outlined in emails last month:
1) Have two separate meetings - one the informal conference, the other a full blown public hearing a week later. Not everyone is going to FOIA a disc copy of the permit file or know how to manuever through it, or make their way to the file rooms whereever. Those members of the public truly interested in knowing more about the permit details and DEP's view of the mining proposed [and the ARE those of us who are interested in that information] will learn from the informal conference and then be better able to make informed and specific comments at the hearing.
2) Conduct one meeting that blends both ... say do 45 minutes with maps and informal discussions with agency and/or company reps, then a 15 minute break for all to absorb what was learned or formulate new questions based on that information, then DEP rep spend 15 minutes giving an overview of highlights and issues that garnered the most attention or concern during the informal smaller group discussions ... and then ~45 minutes for public comments to and with the whole group of those who remain.
3) In either case, extend the public comment period for a week or ten days after the meeting(s) to allow for the information obtained at the meetings to sink in and thereby hopefully lead to more informed written comments from all.
Cindy Rank 304-924-5802 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:32 PM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
Today's Dominion Post editorial. More local news attached.
Jim Kotcon
DOMINION POST Wednesday 19 October 2011:
EDITORIAL
Public comment was not a wrap
State DEP needs to put this experiment in its tape recorder and listen to it
The public paid a call on the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on Monday. The DEP’s representative said the session was just an experiment — an informal conference, not a public hearing. So, who were the 25 audience members to argue? They were the public, that’s who. And judging from their reaction, the DEP might want to think long and hard about experimenting on the public in Monongalia County again. Whether or not the meeting was an informal conference or a public hearing was really never in dispute. It was just the protocol the DEP used for conducting this meeting. Instead of letting members of the crowd address their peers and the DEP’s experts on a permit to renew and expand a coal ash refuse facility, they were ushered to an isolated table to address a recorder while videotaped. Though the DEP’s Division of Mining Reclamation permitting supervisor was on the other side of the table, the public was effectively prevented from hearing the “public” comments. For the more intrepid members of the crowd, who wished to address the crowd and the DEP, their remarks went unheard by all except the recorder and the lone official. The DEP said the meeting’s format was experimental. The idea was to not let members of the public address each other and to provide an outlet for shy members of the crowd. Instead, members of the crowd just raised its voice. For now, we’ll just call it a failed experiment. Perhaps this format has merit in taking testimony in judicial matters. But as it applies to any kind of public comment, it’s contrary to the notion of transparency that’s the cornerstone of our government. We realize that public forums are often marked by one or more speakers who may try to dominate the proceedings. And occasionally some comments are mere rants rather than reasoned pros and cons. But that’s open government — democracy. It’s more often than not messy ... and noisy. The issues before this “informal conference” were environmentally sensitive and could potentially have a major impact on residents, nearby property owners and others. We are not going to take sides on this permit — for now — to double the size of this refuse dump near tributaries of the Monongahela River. However, the DEP has another thing coming if it thinks it can mute public opinion or quietly channel it into its recorders at a public session. Though a measure of decorum and control to allow everyone to say their piece is vital at such meetings, public sessions cannot be reduced to virtual voice mail. The state DEP is a public agency, and it still answers directly to the public.
UPDATE
