Stormwater professionals need more than technical knowledge—they need the negotiating skills to bring people together on issues of policy and program development.

By Andrew J. Reese

Recent emphasis on citizen-group or stakeholder involvement in a variety of urban stormwater-related policy-making situations brings up the need for the technical professional to become proficient in facilitating such groups. Rarely does a professional facilitator have the technical skills and background necessary to lead such a group. Therefore, it is incumbent on the urban stormwater professional to develop the techniques, approaches, and skills necessary for successfully bringing a dissimilar group to agreement on a diverse suite of issues. The professional needs these skills in such areas as stormwater program development, funding and rate development, master planning, and watershed planning.

The technical facilitator must be able to guide a group to consensus on a set of related issues in which most of the group has a stake and an opinion. In the past 20 years we have developed a series of related techniques and procedures to assist in this process. The tools the facilitator uses include a road map, ground rules, policy papers and policy statements, objective criteria, and common sense.

Why a Citizen Group?

There are many ways to involve and educate the public and gain public input. Figure 1 shows a way to consider levels of involvement. Information flows outward; input and commentary flow inward. The level of involvement and the access to information decrease further from the center and the project team.

The project team stands at the center of all actions and decisions. Special staff, such as legal counsel, get involved on an as-needed basis. The advisory group comes in at the next level of involvement. It has input on most key decisions, although access to project information remains controlled and limited to a need-to-know basis.

Why this layer? In my experience, there are key individuals and key public sectors that wield disproportionate influence on local decision-making. If these key stakeholders can be convinced of a certain course of action or can be brought into agreement on a recommendation on a specific issue, the political leadership will most likely support it. This is especially the case if the decision involves spending funds on a stormwater project not viewed as immediately beneficial to all citizens, or if the decision results in specific fees or taxes. The insertion of a citizen group between a political body and a potentially unpopular decision is a common method to "get more fingerprints on the knife."

Outside the advisory group layer is a layer made up of other interested parties and the media. There may be other parties that have an interest but cannot, or should not, be on a committee. They can be "corresponding members" and receive meeting minutes or other information. The media has a special interest in, and needs particular access to, information, though not as much as an advisory group. Outside this group is the general public, mildly interested and more easily influenced by the information obtained from other levels.

A second reason for the use of a citizen group can be summed up in the old adage "Bring me in early, I’m your partner. Bring me in late, I’m your judge." Gaining the support of key stakeholders by including them in the process early is the best way to ensure success during the approval and implementation stages of a stormwater endeavor.

The inclusion of competent and successful citizens representing diverse viewpoints can also bring

• political influence to gain approval,
• influence on key stakeholder groups to gain their support,
• perceived legitimacy and potential ability to educate the public,
• "guinea pigs" to try out concepts and proposals,
• ownership of solutions,
• potential sources of financial partnership for solutions,
• technical or financial know-how,
• potential ability to handle or influence the media,
• a source of good ideas.

Defining the Group

Who Is the Public? When designing a citizen group, first ask these questions: Who is the public? Who am I trying to reach and with what message? Who will have specific concerns and who will need input? Who is influenced by this or that aspect of the program or issue? Different sectors or segments of the "public" will participate or be interested in different issues and in different stages of the same issue:

• The development community will be interested in regulatory and financial aspects.
• The environmental community will be vitally interested in water-quality issues.
• Specific neighborhoods will be interested in specific provisions for drainage controls, regional stormwater treatment, safety, park integration, greenways, and so on.
• Clubs or social organizations might show interest in participating in some programs.
• Schoolchildren can be interested in the environment or clean creeks.
• Various social classes might show interest in utility fees or charges.
• Tax-exempt and governmental properties will be interested in new user fees.
• Commercial and industrial concerns might have similar interests in fees and charges (and credits).
• Design professionals will have an interest in the technical criteria and regulatory requirements.

It is important that the citizen group has representation for each legitimate stakeholder group plus a few well-known or influential (and reasonable) citizens who can help keep the group on track and steady. An ideal group consists of 10-15 people. This group size allows for some of the people to be absent without reducing the group below a quorum or seeming to be too small to be influential. This size also allows for lively discussion and a diversity of opinion and mitigates against one individual dominating the group.

Figure 1. Levles of Involvement

Public Awareness and the Media. It is usually important to plan and run a campaign to inform the general public about the group, its process, and results. This can go a long way in making the eventual recommendations more acceptable to political leadership and the general public. For very controversial issues, it might be prudent for group members to agree not to speak to the media except through a chosen spokesperson.

Consider creating and distributing a frequently asked questions (FAQ) sheet to various team members, political leaders, and group members. The FAQ provides the "party line" on key questions and gives vital statistical information on the problems the group wishes to address. It is important to have a logically thought-through presentation of the group’s approach and findings. In one case, when selling the concept of a stormwater utility user fee system as a primary funding mechanism, all involved received the following logic:

• Stormwater problems are real and unresolved.
• The problems can be solved.
• Government must lead.
• Benefits will result.
• Adequate, stable, equitable funding is created.
• A utility is the most practical vehicle for solutions.

Group members, if chosen carefully, can perform a service selling the results of the process to individuals, stakeholder groups, and the general public. Often, developing a scripted slide show proves effective for group members to use to advertise what they are doing. In some cases I have developed a brochure with headshots of group members complete with quotes and sound bites about how they feel about the fairness of the process and its eventual results. This allows group members to be seen as unbiased regular citizens by the media and can convince the media of the benefits of a certain decision when staff or political leaders cannot.

Authority and Purpose. The next issue covers defining the specific purpose of the group and its authority. There are several types of groups, and it is important to specifically determine which type you desire. There is much to be wary of in public participatory groups.

Advisory groups can be helpful under controlled and well-defined circumstances. There is a built-in dichotomy with such groups in that the members selected to represent stakeholders are normally selected because they are decision-makers who carry weight with their constituencies. Such people are rarely satisfied to only provide advice, nor do they like situations where their advice is not perceived as being heard. Alternately, the persons sent to the advisory committee might have little or no authority within their constituencies but are sent to be eyes and ears. If decisions come down that the stakeholders do not like, the participation of such low-level individuals will be somewhat meaningless as issues are revisited politically.

It is helpful to ask and answer some key questions. What are the group’s goals and objectives? Is the group advisory, or does it actually make policy? Who should appoint the members, and on what basis? How will their recommendations be formulated and presented? What is the expected outcome and impact of decisions the group will make? How influential will it be?

Defining the Issues

In local government, decisions come from different levels. Rezoning and other land-use decisions are often reserved for elected officials only, as are certain legislative decisions. Much of the regulatory function is left up to staff decision-making and authority. Smaller decisions may be made on a daily basis by plans reviewers, city engineers, maintenance foremen, and so on.

In the same way, the spectrum of decisions and issues with which the citizen group should deal ought to be presented in such a way that members can actually make decisions without needing to become technical experts or dealing with all the minutia surrounding their decisions or recommendations. Therefore it is important to:

• define issues in simple (not simplistic) terms where clear decisions or recommendations are needed and can be made. Do not leave the group with vague guidance or unclear structure.
• limit the number of decisions so they can be handled in an appropriate number of meetings. Do not overwork the group.
• structure the decisions such that they follow a logical, building-block process with a beginning and an end.
• state the decisions to be made in the form of questions to be answered.
• provide well-defined limits to the types of decisions that can be made and the scope of the group’s consideration.
• provide the necessary background information to allow the group to make informed decisions.

To provide vision and definition for the decision-making process, consider a "road map." Figure 2 is an example of a road map used by a group to determine the direction for a local stormwater program and the feasibility of funding stormwater through a stormwater utility. Blocks can be shaded to represent parts of the meeting process that are of current or past concern. This helps keep the group on track and focused on current issues. It also tends to limit the ability of the group to backtrack through old issues. The whole group should agree that there is a need to revisit a "completed" issue to go back.

Figure 2. Road Map

This road map depicts the objectives of the group in a logical order. The questions for the group to address were:

• What are we spending now on stormwater and what are we doing?
• What are the current stormwater program problems, needs, and issues?
• What should the program priorities be in stormwater management in the next five to 10 years?
• How do these priorities translate into a program growth schedule and into a demand for financial resources and manpower?
• What options do we have for funding the program?
• How should we report our findings and recommendations to the appointing authority?

Defining the Process

Consensus Building. The process the group follows in its deliberations and decision-making is important. It is best to have a controlled but not overly rigid process. We favor a consensus-building model of decision-making.

Figure 3. Policy Paper Process

Consensus is a decision-making process that works creatively to include all persons making the decision. It is a powerful decision process because all members agree to the final decision. Consensus takes into account and validates each participant. All members get the opportunity to voice their opinions or to block a proposal if they feel strongly enough about a decision. It equalizes power over a group of people. Instead of simply voting for an item and having the majority of the group get its way, the group has to sit down and find a solution to a problem that everyone agrees to. The solution the group thinks is the most positive gets chosen, unless a member of the group finds the solution totally unacceptable. Consensus is based on compromise and the ability to find common ground. It promotes participation because each person has the power to make changes in the system and to prevent changes he or she finds unacceptable. There are different levels of consensus (full agree, agree with reservations, disagree but stand aside, full disagreement) and different ways to test for consensus in the middle of a discussion (straw poll, thumbs up, green-yellow-red, and so on). A fuller discussion of consensus building, beyond the scope of this paper, can be found in a number of sources.

Consensus building also has several disadvantages. Because it is a lengthier process to hash out ideas until resolving all objections, group meetings might be longer and some proposals might take more than one meeting to decide. Also, some proposals may be dismissed if there is no hope of compromise; consensus sometimes favors the status quo. It is more expensive, yet the results of having all parties own the solutions are usually worth it. Remember, the citizen group is not used for run-of-the-mill decisions but when controversy might result from decisions made and when broad support is necessary for progress and success.

Ground Rules and Objective Criteria. To maintain order, it is important that ground rules and, if necessary, objective criteria are agreed to at the first meeting. When group members agree on these things, they tend to become more "self policing." This is especially true with the ground rules posted prominently at every meeting and ideas or suggestions subjected to the objective criteria.

Ground rules are simple statements on how we intend to conduct ourselves while we are conducting a meeting. They might include:

• Wait to be recognized.
• Stay on topic.
• One question at a time.
• Share time with others.
• No sidebar conversations.
• Arrive on time and stay till the end.

Objective criteria are a set of standards by which we evaluate suggestions and compare competing suggestions or ideas. In one major eastern United States city, the list developed by the group included that a new stormwater utility rate methodology be clear and understandable, promote revenue stability, reflect experience elsewhere, promote good behavior, not harm the city, be efficient, be cost-effective, be revenue-neutral, be equitable and fair, and promote good stewardship of financial and environmental resources.

Policy Papers. It is convenient to work through the road map using a policy paper process. Figure 3 illustrates that process. Initially the staff and consultant team draft a policy paper. The paper may be three to five pages, including background information in nontechnical terms, policy options based on what other cities or counties found effective and what might work in this situation, pros and cons, and recommendations. The paper goes out to all group members a week ahead of time and gets discussed at the next meeting. A brief presentation of the paper occurs, and the meeting facilitator frames key specific questions to be answered. It helps to arrive at a consensus on the issue or issues in the paper. Once this happens, the group moves on to the next policy paper.

Between meetings, the staff and consultant team develop and mail out a policy statement to be discussed at the next meeting. This statement is a concise description of the issue and a brief statement that describes precisely the feelings and consensus of the group. The group modifies the statement as necessary and agrees to it. There is resistance to going back to rehash the previous meeting unless there is a consensus that the disagreement or new information should be considered. A member who misses a meeting should have an alternate attend. The member forfeits the ability to change the policy paper after the fact unless the group agrees to it.

All policy papers and policy statements are collected into a report at the end of the process. They make a convenient record of the group’s activities and can often simply be bound together with a preface and serve as the final report to the appointing body and, along with meeting minutes, serve as a record of the proceedings sufficient to use in legal defense should that become necessary.

Summary

In summary, of the many tools a stormwater manager has to educate and involve the public, the use of a citizen group can be very rewarding and can greatly assist a local government in making key decisions about a stormwater program. These groups can be used in master planning decisions, policy development, funding implementation, and stormwater program development.

The tips and procedures presented in this article for making such groups successful come from more than 20 years’ experience in more than 50 such groups concerning various aspects of stormwater management. Key points can be summarized in a checklist:

• Do have a controlled process.
• Do have limited and defined goals.
• Do have ground rules and objective criteria.
• Do have defined group authority.
• Do keep records and publicize your group.
• Do report to the appointing authority.
• Don’t have a "stacked" committee.
• Don’t overcontrol discussion or decisions.
• Don’t allow the group to get off track and wander aimlessly.
• Don’t have a committee without influence.
• Don’t ignore their input.

Andrew J. Reese, P.E., is with AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. in Nashville, TN.