Welcome and Introductions
David Bidwell of The Perspectives Group, facilitator for the task force, welcomed task force members
to the meeting. Members and other attendees introduced themselves. David explained that the purpose
of this meeting was to receive initial feedback from Fermilab on the task force's draft recommendations
and to further refine these recommendations based on that input.

Feedback on Preliminary Recommendations
Although Judy Jackson was unable to attend the meeting, she did supply the task force with feedback on its preliminary recommendations. Mike Perricone presented Judy's feedback to the group. Slides from this presentation and a copy of the task force's draft recommendations are available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

Judy commented that the task force's draft document clearly responds to the charge given to the group by Fermilab. She noted that, in a short time, the task force has achieved a remarkable understanding of how Fermilab works. She encouraged the group to specify the importance of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the site contractor that manages the lab, University Research Associates (URA), in achieving its vision for public participation. Judy cited two main issues in implementing the task force's recommendations. First, additional resources will be required to dedicate a staff person and contractors to public participation. Given the tight budgets faced by Fermilab, this could be difficult. Second, full implementation of the recommendations would require a change in the Fermilab culture. Judy stated that this would be the more difficult of the two challenges. She noted that careful thought and planning must go into implementation of a public participation policy, and she suggested that task force members Sally Arnold, Roger Dixon, and Herman White could provide invaluable input on how to do this. Judy further noted that it could be easier to incorporate public participation into a new International Linear Collider project than more “standard” projects at the laboratory. Judy commented that it would be important to get support from a new Fermilab director, who will take over management of the lab in Summer 2006. She concluded her feedback by stating that the key message regarding the task force recommendations should be that “decisions made with public participation will be better decisions not just for the community but for Fermilab and for particle physics.”

The group briefly discussed how the Fermilab culture could change to promote public participation. Mike Perricone explained that several years ago, the laboratory undertook a comprehensive program to promote a culture of safety. This program was successful and the accident rate at the laboratory has been reduced significantly. The group discussed the potential use of the safety program as a model for implementing a public participation policy.

Mike Perricone provided the group with the informal feedback he had received from Fermilab's director, Mike Witherell. Mike Witherell would like to take more time to review the recommendations and discuss them with the Fermilab members on the task force before he provides official comments. Initial feedback from the director included the need to define how public participation would fit the context of the project; for example, there are some projects that have no effects beyond the laboratory. He also asked for more information on what would be a suitable mechanism for a “central clearing house” of public information. If the task force recommends a standing advisory group, Mike Witherell also commented that the group should have a rotating membership, so more community members are involved over time.

Mike Perricone also explained the general steps that would be involved in developing a written public participation policy for the laboratory. An initial step would be to assemble an internal group to consider the potential impacts and benefits of the task force's recommendations. This group would determine the lab's goals for its policy and coordinates the effort with DOE. The group would report to Mike Witherell, who must sign off on the new policy.

Mike Perricone summarized that there are no obvious “show-stoppers” in the task force's draft recommendations. The laboratory management remains committed to the task force and public participation. He stated that the task force has made impressive progress.

Jane Monhart of DOE reiterated the need to incorporate DOE and URA into the document. Roger Dixon stated that the principles devised by the task force are good start for developing a policy and give the laboratory a lot of freedom in how to accomplish the principles, but the task force should define any specific procedures about which it feels strongly.

The group also discussed the need for “triggers” to be defined that would indicate projects that required public participation. David reminded the group that, in past months, the task force discussed potential impacts about which it was concerned. Group members stressed that Fermilab should inform the public about potential positive impacts of its research and activities, as well as negative impacts. Members suggested that Fermilab could announce all of its projects and activities and allow the public to identify those activities that need public participation. A member suggested that a regular newspaper column would be a good means to accomplish this.

Discussion of Draft Vision, Principles, and Policies
David suggested the task force focus its discussion of the draft vision, principles, and policies at a higher level, rather than worrying about specific language. David also explained that Judy Jackson provided specific comments on the draft, which he would add to the discussion as appropriate.

The group fi rst discussed the draft vision for public participation at Fermilab. Several members suggested the vision refl ect the positive effects of the laboratory on the community and the benefits that the community currently receives from Fermilab. Members specifically stressed the value of open space provided by the lab and asserted the community wants to maintain these benefits into the future. The group also agreed that URA, DOE, and Fermilab should be specified as stakeholders.

The group suggested the principles should indicate that all voices will be heard, but they should not set false expectations that all public input will infl uence decisions. Task force members also agreed that the goal of public participation is to maximize positive outcomes for all stakeholders, including Fermilab. The group reiterated the importance of providing the public with understandable information about potential effects of Fermilab activities. Mike Perricone explained that there are conceptual plans to construct a visitors' center for the laboratory, but funding has not been secured for this project.

David asked the group if there were issues not adequately addressed by the policies the group has already developed. Members suggested that Fermilab emulate the Brookhaven model for implementation of its public participation policy, which included a written guide for lab managers and other formal steps.

The group also discussed the appropriate timing to involve stakeholders in a project. Members said that the timing for involvement would be different for each project, but it should occur as early as possible. Members noted that public participation in the early conceptual stages of a project could help the laboratory to develop better project proposals and build trust within the community. They also discussed the importance of clearly defining the project process, so the community does not become overly concerned about activities that might never occur. Members stressed the importance of letting the public know that proposals change frequently as they are developed. The proposed linear collider was provided as an example of a project for which participation would be beneficial at the earliest possible phases. A member noted that the scope of participation should be matched to the project phase in which it is occurring.

Next Steps
David discussed the next steps for the task force. He suggested that the group revise its recommendations and then ask Fermilab for its feedback. Then, the group could meet in December to give final approval on its recommendations.

Bill Weidner, Alan Gard, and Craig Jones volunteered to work with David to revise the document. When a revised set of draft recommendations is completed, David will send it to the full task force. Task Force members will be asked to send David their comments on this revised draft, so he can provide them with a further revised document prior to the December meeting.

David encouraged the group to share the draft recommendations with their colleagues and other members of the community to get their feedback on what the task force has proposed.

Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Fermilab Task Force on Public Participation is Tuesday, December 7 from
6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at Fermilab's Wilson Hall.