David noted that Task Force members Edi Eckley, Mark Intihar, and Mike McCoy had called to notify the group that they could not attend the meeting.

David announced that the website for the Fermilab Community Task Force on Public Participation is up and running. It can be found at www.fermilabcommunity.org. David also reminded the group that portions of the meeting were being videotaped and will be used to tell the story of the Task Force. The videographers from Fermilab might contact a few individual Task Force members, to schedule brief interviews for use in the final video.

Mike Perricone, Fermilab Public Affairs, encouraged Task Force members who did not attend the March retreat to contact him to schedule a tour of the facility.

Decision Making at Fermilab
Mike Witherell, Fermilab Director, provided the Task Force with an overview of decision-making and budgeting for Fermilab.

Fermilab is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Mike showed the group the DOE organizational chart, explaining that the High Energy Physics program is one of six divisions managed by the DOE Office of Science.

Mike shared that Universities Research Association (URA) operates the lab, through a contract with DOE. URA is a non-profit consortium of 90 research universities. Mike noted that later in the year DOE will open a competitive bidding process for the contract for the first time, so it will be possible for a new organization to manage Fermilab in the future.

Mike stated that major research projects, which often require the construction of a new facility, may require ten years to be approved and funded. He also noted that the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel provides input on the priorities for Fermilab research.

Each year, URA proposes a budget and work plan to the High Energy Physics division of DOE. Then, DOE recommends a budget to the president, who submits the annual budget proposal to the U.S. Congress. Funding for Fermilab and other Office of Science programs are part of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Ultimately this congressional budget committee determines the final annual budget.

In recent years, the total annual budget for Fermilab has been around $300 million. Of this, approximately 80 percent is earmarked for support of annual project goals. Allocation of the remaining 20 percent of the funding can be adjusted to meet short-term needs and priorities. Mike explained that in real dollars, funding for Fermilab has been fairly consistent over the past decade, meaning it has not kept pace with the rate of inflation. Mike stated that many people are making a case for increased federal funding for science, but he provided data that showed most of the increases in spending have gone to the National Institutes of Health.

Mike also explained that Fermilab must undergo an annual series of program and budget reviews by DOE, as well as a semiannual independent review.

Task Force members asked several questions regarding the budget. Mike used slides to further clarify the status of the budget and how it has changed through the years. He explained that deciding where to make cuts in programs or staff is the most difficult part of his job as Director of Fermilab.

Slides from Mike’s presentation are available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

Introduction to Public Participation
David Bidwell talked to the group about public participation. David noted that during the Task Force retreat, members suggested several ways that Fermilab could reach out to the community and communicate a positive message about the lab and its work. The group discussed the difference between "community relations" and "public participation." Community relations programs focus primarily on creating goodwill in the community or public buy-in on a decision. David stated that this is an important function and noted that a Public Affairs Department and an Education Department serve this function at Fermilab. In contrast, the goal of public participation is to get community input on decisions.

The group reviewed the Public Participation Spectrum, created by the International Association of Public Participation. The Spectrum presents five categories of public participation, classified by the degree of influence that the public has in the decision-making process. David explained that at the lowest level of influence, the public is only provided with information about the decision. At the highest level of influence, the public is empowered to make the final decision. David stated that the three levels in the center of the spectrum--Consult, Involve, and Collaborate--are the most commonly used levels of public participation.

In a process that uses the Consult level of participation, the public is asked to provide input on an issue or decision. The decision-making entity, generally a governmental agency or a company, promises to consider the public’s input as part of the decision-making process. A typical example of this type of participation is a public comment period for a decision document. In the Involve and Collaborate levels of public participation, the decision-makers work more closely with the public throughout the process. At the Involve level of participation, decision makers promise to work with the public to integrate their values into the decision-making process. At the Collaborate level, decision-makers promise to work directly with the public to craft and evaluate alternatives and to consider that input to the greatest extent possible in making the final decision. David noted that the Task Force is an example of the Collaborate model, because Fermilab has asked the Task Force members to recommend components of a public participation policy and is working with the group to provide the information needed to develop recommendations.

A copy of the Public Participation Spectrum is available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

David stressed the importance of the public and decision-makers having a clear and common understanding of the level of participation that has been promised, so there fewer opportunities for misunderstandings to arise.

Small groups of Task Force members discussed brief cases provided by David. Each group discussed what public participation would look like at each level of the Spectrum for a single case. Following this discussion, each group shared its thoughts about its case. The Task Force members also discussed examples of projects in their own communities, for which they believed the wrong level of participation had been selected.

A Task Force member also suggested that the group spend time at a future meeting addressing the appropriate roles of local stakeholders versus stakeholders at a regional or national level.

Review of the Draft Task Force Charter
David distributed a revised Task Force Charter to the group. He announced that the charter would be approved as the first order of business at the May Task Force meeting. David requested that Task Force members provide him with any specific comments on the Charter, prior to the May 25 meeting.

A Task Force member questioned the need to include ground rules in the final charter. David stated that he understood the ground rules may sound preachy to the members, since most people abide by these rules out of common courtesy. He explained, however, that the ground rules clearly spell out expectations and could be referred to later in the process, if undesirable behaviors crop up.

Public Comment
One member of the public attended this meeting but did not wish to provide any comments.

Next Meeting
The Task Force asked Judy Jackson to invite representatives from Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and DESY in Switzerland to attend its June meeting, so they could speak about public participation programs and experiences at those facilities.

The Task Force discussed potential topics for its May meeting. The members requested information regarding the future vision for Fermilab and the lab’s economic impacts on the community. David suggested that the group take time during the May meeting to begin listing the types of issues that would be of greatest interest to the community.

The Task Force asked David to contact members not in attendance, to ensure they are still interested in participating in the group and are aware of the upcoming meeting.

The next meeting of the Fermilab Task Force on Public Participation is Tuesday, May 25 from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at Fermilab’s Wilson Hall. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting.