Originally published as Chapter VII, “Lessons Learned from the FCAB Experience” in HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE FERNALD CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD, 1993 - 2006.
(For instructions on how to access the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board website, click here. Disclaimer: Download times may vary based on internet connection.)
1. Create a Clear Focus for the Advisory Board
The FCAB owes part of its success to focusing on goals and understanding its role in decision making.
Establish a well-reasoned work plan
Site remediation is a complex project, and no advisory group can give adequate attention to all possible topics. The charge given to the Fernald Citizens Task Force by DOE and the regulators in 1993 successfully guided its initial work. In subsequent years, the FCAB set priorities and goals for the coming year during annual retreats by drafting a plan of work. This work plan allowed the FCAB to focus on issues that were most critical to the community and on which it could have the greatest influence. Goal-setting was facilitated by an early FCAB determination that future use of the site should be the primary driver for cleanup.
Consider the broader context in which decisions are made
When considering issues, the FCAB tried to understand the full impact of its recommendations. For example, when crafting its initial recommendations on Fernald cleanup, the FCAB took time to learn how potential approaches would affect other sites in the DOE Complex, communities near potential disposal sites and transportation routes. This helped the Board avoid NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) attitudes and accept onsite disposal. Through SSAB workshops and other national meetings, FCAB members frequently networked with stakeholders from other cleanup sites. In addition, some Board members were active in national advocacy groups and other relevant organizations.
Understand relationships to other organizations
Several community organizations were devoted to the Fernald site in addition to the FCAB, but each organization had a different focus (e.g., political advocacy, community health effects, and historical preservation). Through open communications, these groups were able to establish a clear “division of labor” and avoid redundancies. On significant and crosscutting issues, the FCAB was able to coordinate with these other organizations. For instance, Future of Fernald workshops were conducted in conjunction with Fernald Residents for Environmental Health and Safety (FRESH) and Fernald Living History, Inc.
2. Create a Strong Administrative Structure
The structure and operations of the FCAB contributed to its success.
Clarify group structure and ground rules
As one of its first steps, the FCAB (originally the Citizens Task Force) developed a set of common values and reached consensus on ground rules for group operations. For example, FCAB members were expected to participate in a majority of meetings. These rules established consensus as the Board’s method of making decisions. On the two occasions when the Board could not reach consensus on a major issue, all opinions were documented via minority reports, as agreed upon by the members.
Use committees to address major issues
The FCAB formed several topic-specific committees throughout the years. Although Board members chaired committees, all stakeholders were welcome to participate in committee activities. Participants devoted extensive time to learning about issues and considering alternatives. Committees proposed specific recommendations and actions for consideration and potential approval by the full Board. Unique among these groups, the Stewardship Committee met for several years during planning for post-closure management of the site.
Consider pros and cons of limiting membership terms
Unlike most SSABs, the FCAB did not impose a limit on the number of terms a member could serve, and several stakeholders have served the entire duration of the Board. The continuity of membership created efficiencies in addressing issues, because the members developed a deep knowledge of the Fernald site and remediation issues. Consistency of regulator and contract staff also helped the process by allowing long-term relationships to develop among stakeholders. On the other hand, the lack of turnover prevented the regular infusion of fresh perspectives into FCAB activities.
Evaluate your work
At each annual retreat, the Board evaluated its performance and accomplishments from the preceding year. The FCAB applied the results of this evaluation as it developed its work plan for the coming year.
3. Use a Consensus-Based Decision Making Process
Many stakeholders credit the FCAB’s achievements to its decision-making process.
Base decisions on good information
Information sharing and group learning were key components of the FCAB decision-making process. The Board received regular project updates—in person and via email from site staff —and toured site facilities in order to stay current on site conditions. As specific issues arose, the FCAB invited technical staff and site managers to provide presentations and written materials to the group. When tackling complex issues, the FCAB often sought information from several sources and perspectives.
Foster collaboration among all stakeholders
At its best, the FCAB approached problems in a spirit of collaboration with DOE, regulators, and site contractors. FCAB members willingly put aside personal agendas for the benefit of the group and actively sought diverse viewpoints. Solid, long-lasting working relationships among the FCAB members and other stakeholders contributed to this collaborative approach. When relationships occasionally broke down, the FCAB would refocus on shared learning or call for “summits” to clear the air.
Recognize benefits of outside facilitation
An independent consultant provided facilitation and technical support to the Board from 1993 until its completion. This consultant aided the decision-making process by managing information sharing, meeting with individual interests, planning meeting agendas, and facilitating group dialogue. The facilitator contributed to the legitimacy of the FCAB decision-making process by keeping the group focused on its goals and moving towards its objectives.
Keep a sense of humor
Although they were tackling serious issues regarding human health and the environment, the FCAB members tried to maintain their sense of humor and find ways to enjoy the time they spent together. By celebrating group accomplishments or reserving time to share a cup of coffee, the group was better able to maintain collegial relationships and avoid burnout among its participants.
4. Create Effective Outreach and Communications
Open communication with the broader community of stakeholders helped the FCAB to be effective in its advisory role.
Communicate routinely with the local community
While FCAB meetings were open to the general public, the Board would sometimes reach out directly to the broader community. At special public workshops, the Board could share information with the public and elicit its input. There were other times when FCAB members reached out to explain Board positions to people less involved in the process. One way the Board maintained openness was through its web site, on which recommendations, meeting summaries, and other materials were posted. Another communication tool used by the FCAB was a newsletter it produced during its early years. A press advisory was issued when the Board produced its initial recommendations in 1995, and the event garnered significant press coverage. In contrast, the board regretted not having communicated more effectively with local governments, which were less engaged at the FEMP than at other Nuclear Weapons Complex sites.
Maintain support of the convening agency
In early years of the Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs), some staff members and political appointees at DOE Headquarters were vocal champions of public participation. FCAB members developed strong relationships with these individuals, which helped the FCAB to be more effective in its advisory role. Headquarters personnel change frequently, however, and in later years the FCAB was less effective in developing relationships at the Headquarters level. Board members believe their influence in decision making diminished during that time.