Welcome and Introductions
David Bidwell of The Perspectives Group, facilitator for the task force, welcomed task force members to the meeting.

David explained that in response to the request of task force members, Mike Perricone developed a fact sheet about public output for the NuMI/MINOS project (this fact sheet is posted on www.fermilabcommunity.org. Mike stated that the people living near the Minnesota mine used to collect data were supportive of the NuMI/ MINOS project. He noted that due to a communications breakdown with the project contractor, Fermilab's neighbors experienced worse-than-expected noise and vibrations during excavation of the on-site tunnel. Public Affairs responded quickly to complaints, but Mike noted that more outreach before the project began might have helped the situation. Task force members stated that the public might be more concerned about having neutrino beams projected beneath their homes, but there was little evidence that people living above the beam were contacted directly by Fermilab. Mike stated that the State of Wisconsin was approached during the development of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. David suggested that this issue could serve as an important example of a public participation challenge for the laboratory.

Judy Jackson addressed the group via telephone from a meeting in Virginia. She apologized for not being able to attend the task force meeting in person but explained that she was attending a pre-organizational meeting for the first International Linear Collider (ILC) meeting. Judy explained that a recent decision on the technology to be used for the ILC had accelerated planning efforts for the project. As a direct result of its experience with the task force, Fermilab pushed to have communication and public participation discussed at the upcoming international project meetings. Judy stated that it would be the first time that public participation has been included in earliest phases of the design process for any major accelerator.

Revised Draft Vision for Public Participation
Following the August meeting, three members of the task force, John Fildes, Alan Grad, and Steve Pawlowicz, revised the group's draft vision for public participation at Fermilab and recommended preliminary policies (see www.fermilabcommunity.org). John explained that the vision for public participation was revised to better explain the context in which public participation would occur.

The task force discussed the revised draft vision and also what priority should be given to different stakeholder groups. The group determined that public participation at Fermilab should focus on individual members of communities that are local to the Fermilab property and its projects. Key points of the conversation are listed below:

• Taxpayers are an important stakeholder group, because Fermilab is a public institution.
  
• Public participation is focused primarily on local impacts of projects, such as noise, traffic, and job creation.
  
• The scope of "local" will depend on the project. For example, the MINOS project has "local stakeholders" at the Fermlab site, at the mine in Minnesota, and along the path of the neutrino beam that passes below Wisconsin.
  
• The categories of stakeholders identified in the vision are not exclusive. For instance, a scientist from the laboratory could also be a local stakeholder if he or she lives nearby.
  
• Although public participation is focused on local stakeholders, it is often beneficial to bring many types of stakeholders (e.g., agency personnel, elected officials, scientists, and local residents) together to discuss issues.
  
• While elected officials have access to legal and regulatory processes, Fermilab also reaches out directly to elected officials to provide them with information and gain their input.

Draft Principles and Policy
David explained that the principles were rewritten to reflect more active language and for each principle, John, Alan, and Steve suggested policies and procedures. For the purpose of discussion, the principles, policies, and procedures were divided into five general categories:
A. Relationship with the Community
B. Scope of Participation
C. Integration of Participation in Decision Making
D. Role of Information
E. Implementing Participation

Two or three task force members volunteered to discuss each of the five categories during the meeting. Each small group worked separately to review the draft principles, policies, and procedures in its category and suggest revisions. Then, each group brainstormed additional policies that would help Fermilab successfully fulfill each principle. After meeting in small groups for approximately 40 minutes, the full group reconvened to share the ideas discussed in the small groups. Key points made by each small group are listed below.

Group A: Relationship with the Community

• Draft principles 1 and 2 was combined into one principle
  
• Draft principle 3 applies to all views, not just dissenting views, and includes dissemination of ideas
  
• Adapt the Brookhaven public participation guide to Fermilab, in order to clearly communicate procedures
  
• Use all forms of communication to inform stakeholders about an issue that arises

Group B: Scope of Participation

• Ad hoc task forces are more appropriate than a standing task force
  
• Triggers are needed to indicate when public participation is appropriate; the development of an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment is one trigger
  
• Require "sign-off" for each project regarding its public participation needs; a person is needed to make this determination
  
• Opportunities are needed for the public to determine issues on which public participation is needed
  
• Determine one "real contact person" for each project that will respond to public questions and comments

Group C: Integration of Participation in Decision Making

• All projects at Fermilab may not require public participation
  
• There may be only a small number of managers that oversee public participation
  
• Include a section that addresses public participation needs in all proposals and design studies; include this section in internal reviews
  
• Include public participation performance in routine project reviews
  
• Create a mechanism, such as a standing task force, for the public to review Fermilab's public participation efforts

• Key questions are what information will be released and how broadly it will be communicated
  
• Establish a separate web site that provides information pertinent to public participation processes
  
• Create a regular publication, possibly in the local newspapers, that keeps the public updated on what's happening with Fermilab and its projects
  
• Communicate information about issues that are perceived as potentially harmful by the public
  
• Designate an individual at the laboratory to serve as the primary public contact and resource to the laboratory

Group E: Implementing Participation

• Create a dedicated web site that provides information and gathers input
  
• Use local television stations and newspapers to disseminate information
  
• Change approaches to public participation and outreach over time, as new technology and communication channels arise
  
• Eliminate jargon from communications to the general public
  
• Designate an individual that can help the laboratory understand public perspectives on an issue
  
• Use direct mail to reach all residents that might be impacted by a project
  
• Reach out directly and take information to individuals and groups that have concerns; people appreciate when you come to them and make personal contact

Next Steps
David will revise the principles and policies document based on the small groups' input and distribute it to the task force members for their review and comment.

David indicated that Judy Jackson would lead the effort to develop a public participation policy for Fermilab, and Mike Witherell would like to have a policy in place before he retires as Director in 2005. Other top Fermilab managers will also provide input on the policy.

The group discussed the possibility of getting input from Fermilab regarding how it would form a policy and what that policy would look like. Some members felt this would be helpful to the group, but other members stated that specific recommendations needed additional full group discussion. The group asked that Judy Jackson provide the Task Force with information about the process that will be used to establish the public participation policy and get some preliminary feedback from lab managers regarding ideas that have been discussed by the group. Judy should be clear that the task force has not reached consensus on these ideas when she talks to managers at Fermilab. Task Force members believed that input from Fermilab would help them to further hone their recommendations during the October meeting.

Task force members acknowledged that more than one meeting would be required to finalize their recommendations. David will provide the group with potential dates for a meeting in December or January. He also explained that Fermilab would like to convene the group in early 2005 to celebrate the final Fermilab policy.

Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Fermilab Task Force on Public Participation is Tuesday, October 26, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at Fermilab's Wilson Hall.

Mike Perricone announced that he would be glad to coordinate tours for task force members that want to see the anti-proton source for the laboratory. Interested members should contact him by telephone or email.