32.3 Identification of Issues
The final part of the strategy was channeling information to the news media, Washington Office
staffs, and members of Congress. The assessment Public Involvement Team worked with the
SAMAB Public Affairs Committee to develop a detailed media release strategy. Washington briefings
were made by SAA co-leaders and members of the
SAMAB Executive Committee.
32.2.3 Involving the Public
One message that came through clearly from town
hall meetings, which were designed to encourage
public participation in the assessment process, was
that people wanted to be included. This did not necessarily mean that everyone wanted to attend every
meeting, but rather that they wanted to know what
was going on and to decide for themselves whether
to attend working sessions. One key decision was
to keep the project as open as possible. Regular
working meetings were scheduled for each technical team at locations throughout the assessment
area. Scheduling meetings with sufficient lead time
to get the announcement in the newsletter was often difficult, but a sincere effort was made.
Initially, most teams were very uneasy about the
idea of having the public sit in on their working
sessions. They anticipated that the public would be
a disrupting influence and would make it difficult
to accomplish their work. With the short time
frames and overwhelming demands being placed
on the teams, their concerns were certainly understandable. Public participation did not prove to be
the threat that was anticipated. To the contrary, the
public was often very helpful and provided the team
with insight on controversial and sensitive subjects.
Many issues that could have become problems later
in the process were identified early and dealt with
directly.
An important part of the process for working
with the public was establishing the public involvement assessment team. A public involvement
team member served on each of the technical teams
to provide advice and consultation and to serve as
liaison to the public involvement team. This interdisciplinary approach was successful at keeping
communications open.
32.2.4 Document Preparation
Packaging a document the size of a regional assessment with scores of writers involved, hundreds
of charts and figures, literature citations, tables,
photos, and authors to acknowledge is a monu475
mental effort. Someone was needed to worry about
the details. Each technical team had the assistance
of one or more technical writers plus the guidance
of the writing team. Here, too, the skills necessary
to present all the materials in an attractive and consistent way did not exist among the scientists and
specialists doing the analyses. Getting the editors
involved early saved much wasted effort once the
work got underway. The Technical Writing Team
helped define the overall report format, style requirements, table layouts, and the like.
Manuscript review was not adequately planned
for in the initial assessment scheduling. It soon became obvious, however, that this review would become an essential part of the process. Each team
leader was asked to arrange appropriate review of
the assessment products. Members of the participating public argued strenuously for public comment as part of the review process. In response, it
was agreed that public interest groups could nominate qualified reviewers, and names were solicited
through the newsletter. The traditional peer review
process familiar to most researchers was modified
to include both formal peer review and comment
from recognized technical experts. This review was
called a technical review, rather than a peer review,
to better reflect the diversity of the reviewers.
Phase 2 was a policy review of the assessment
documents. Each participating agency was sent
copies of the draft manuscripts and asked to review
and approve the documents for policy. Copies were
also sent to selected Washington Office staffs.
These reviews proved to be extremely careful and
thorough. In fact, they were often more technically
thorough than the technical reviews. All reviews
were helpful and were appropriately managed and
appreciated.
32.3 Identification of Issues
An integrated interagency assessment brings many
different viewpoints and priorities. For the assessment planners, issue identification was a critical
starting point for organizing the project and setting
priorities. Initially, however, there was no clear
consensus among participating agencies regarding
what an assessment was, what it should accomplish, what it should cost, how it should be funded,
how long it should take, or who should lead the effort. One thing seemed clear: developing a process
and a strategy for accomplishing the assessment was
necessary before determining how long it would
take and what resources would be needed. This
process, although somewhat crude and poorly de-
The final part of the strategy was channeling information to the news media, Washington Office
staffs, and members of Congress. The assessment Public Involvement Team worked with the
SAMAB Public Affairs Committee to develop a detailed media release strategy. Washington briefings
were made by SAA co-leaders and members of the
SAMAB Executive Committee.
32.2.3 Involving the Public
One message that came through clearly from town
hall meetings, which were designed to encourage
public participation in the assessment process, was
that people wanted to be included. This did not necessarily mean that everyone wanted to attend every
meeting, but rather that they wanted to know what
was going on and to decide for themselves whether
to attend working sessions. One key decision was
to keep the project as open as possible. Regular
working meetings were scheduled for each technical team at locations throughout the assessment
area. Scheduling meetings with sufficient lead time
to get the announcement in the newsletter was often difficult, but a sincere effort was made.
Initially, most teams were very uneasy about the
idea of having the public sit in on their working
sessions. They anticipated that the public would be
a disrupting influence and would make it difficult
to accomplish their work. With the short time
frames and overwhelming demands being placed
on the teams, their concerns were certainly understandable. Public participation did not prove to be
the threat that was anticipated. To the contrary, the
public was often very helpful and provided the team
with insight on controversial and sensitive subjects.
Many issues that could have become problems later
in the process were identified early and dealt with
directly.
An important part of the process for working
with the public was establishing the public involvement assessment team. A public involvement
team member served on each of the technical teams
to provide advice and consultation and to serve as
liaison to the public involvement team. This interdisciplinary approach was successful at keeping
communications open.
32.2.4 Document Preparation
Packaging a document the size of a regional assessment with scores of writers involved, hundreds
of charts and figures, literature citations, tables,
photos, and authors to acknowledge is a monu475
mental effort. Someone was needed to worry about
the details. Each technical team had the assistance
of one or more technical writers plus the guidance
of the writing team. Here, too, the skills necessary
to present all the materials in an attractive and consistent way did not exist among the scientists and
specialists doing the analyses. Getting the editors
involved early saved much wasted effort once the
work got underway. The Technical Writing Team
helped define the overall report format, style requirements, table layouts, and the like.
Manuscript review was not adequately planned
for in the initial assessment scheduling. It soon became obvious, however, that this review would become an essential part of the process. Each team
leader was asked to arrange appropriate review of
the assessment products. Members of the participating public argued strenuously for public comment as part of the review process. In response, it
was agreed that public interest groups could nominate qualified reviewers, and names were solicited
through the newsletter. The traditional peer review
process familiar to most researchers was modified
to include both formal peer review and comment
from recognized technical experts. This review was
called a technical review, rather than a peer review,
to better reflect the diversity of the reviewers.
Phase 2 was a policy review of the assessment
documents. Each participating agency was sent
copies of the draft manuscripts and asked to review
and approve the documents for policy. Copies were
also sent to selected Washington Office staffs.
These reviews proved to be extremely careful and
thorough. In fact, they were often more technically
thorough than the technical reviews. All reviews
were helpful and were appropriately managed and
appreciated.
32.3 Identification of Issues
An integrated interagency assessment brings many
different viewpoints and priorities. For the assessment planners, issue identification was a critical
starting point for organizing the project and setting
priorities. Initially, however, there was no clear
consensus among participating agencies regarding
what an assessment was, what it should accomplish, what it should cost, how it should be funded,
how long it should take, or who should lead the effort. One thing seemed clear: developing a process
and a strategy for accomplishing the assessment was
necessary before determining how long it would
take and what resources would be needed. This
process, although somewhat crude and poorly de-