=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #362
—November 3, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Here’s a scenario played out time and again by citizens all
across the country:
The governor is holding a “town meeting” at a local restaurant.
Activists battling state government over a medical waste
incinerator in their neighborhood attend the “town meeting” to
confront the governor. They hope to advance their issue, get
media attention, and pin down the governor on broken promises and
misleading or untrue statements.
The citizens do a terrific job of standard “organizing.” They
turn out about 40 people on a rainy weekday morning. They have
placards from previous demonstrations, pass them out, picket and
chant outside the restaurant. They cut a deal with the
governor’s staff and the restaurant, allowing them to bring their
placards inside; they promise no chanting inside. (This creates
a visual event for the TV cameras.) They had called the press
ahead of time, and media turnout is healthy. So far, so good.
Unfortunately, this is where the activists’ planning stops. Once
inside, they confront the governor, but he dodges every question.
He lies, he denies previous statements and commitments, he
defers issues to others, he uses the power of his office to
intimidate, he cuts off certain topics in the interest of “equal
time for other issues.” The citizens have done a good job of
filtering into the crowd, so the “next question” comes from a
member of their group. Unfortunately, instead of pressing the
governor on the same subject, the next person changes the topic,
allowing the governor to give another superficial answer and move
on. On the evening news, the citizens look marginal and foolish.
When the activists leave, they hold hands, sing a song and say a
prayer before dispersing, but they have lost one and they can
feel it. They did everything by the book, and still they lost.
It will be harder to get people out to demonstrate next time, and
to recruit new activists. The day’s work has done nothing to
advance their issue and the governor probably feels confident
that he can continue to ignore citizens’ rights as he pushes the
incinerator to completion.
What could citizens have done better?
KEEP YOUR FOCUS. These activists failed to keep their focus
tight. As a result, the governor was able to give superficial
answers on 10 aspects of the issue. Instead of following up on
one issue, the citizens were too eager to jump to something else.
One could almost hear them thinking, “He wiggled out of that one
–I’ll nail him with this other issue!”
Politicians plan “themes” for their public appearances; activists
should do likewise. They should think out the message they want
to convey to the public by confronting the governor. Public
officials are professionals in the art of confrontation. If you
don’t plan your attack well, skillful politicians will turn your
words back on you, making you appear a shrill extremist, and
painting themselves as victims.
Plan how you want the story to look in the media, then work
backward. If you’re confronting the governor, pick a specific
issue, one easily understood by anyone unfamiliar with the
details of your battle (these people are your real audience).
Pick an issue that reveals clearly why your point of view makes
sense and is the best option.
Think about the response you’ll get; plan to counter that
response. Meet in advance and role-play. Have someone be the
“governor” and have him or her spout the excuses you expect to
hear. These drills are invaluable. They double your
effectiveness.
In the restaurant scenario, the citizens come off as fuzzy and
emotional; the governor appears fair and reasonable. If they had
planned and practiced the exchange, the citizens could have
hammered the governor on a specific point and, while still being
polite, would have revealed that the governor was waffling.
RECORD EVERYTHING. The one real power citizens hold over elected
officials is the power to make them accountable for their words
and actions. If you can show politicians have lied, politicians
become responsive.
This means keeping files of newspaper stories and correspondence
from officials and being able to pull out anything on a moment’s
notice. One of the most effective tools is a chronology, such as
those prepared by Terri Swearingen of Chester, W.V., one of the
activists trying to shut down the huge WTI hazardous waste
incinerator. Terri writes down the details of events as they
unfold, in the order that they happened, and she notes her
sources of information (a reference to a document or a news
story). These chronologies draw a concise picture of the WTI
fight. They can be handed to the press; original sources are
referenced; and Terri’s debating skills are much sharper after
she has written one.
The other key to holding officials accountable is to keep a video
camera in their faces all the time. Vern Hurst of STOP IT in
Nova, Ohio tapes everything, and public officials know it.
Public officials are not quite sure who Vern is, but they know
the man dressed in black is always taping them, so they’re
careful around him. A video camera is guaranteed to make
politicians 50 percent more honest.
Once you’ve assembled detailed records, use them. Citizens can
score on officials, confronting them with a history of broken
promises and shifting positions.
A criterion in selecting your “theme of the day” should be your
written and taped records of a public official’s position on the
issue. Take copies of press reports with you to the governor’s
“town meeting.”
In every encounter with a public official, be polite and calm.
Nothing aids a sleazy politician more than a citizen on the brink
of emotional frenzy. This can be difficult because we are
fighting for our homes and families and many politicians are
willing to sell us out. There is sometimes value in being
aggressive, angry and emotional, but always know what we’re doing
and why.
PAY ATTENTION TO PROCESS. As we saw in the restaurant, the
citizens were right and had the facts, but the governor
controlled the process. If this is a PUBLIC meeting, or a PUBLIC
hearing, the process should be one that promotes real public
participation.
Government and industry learned long ago that winning public
debate is not a matter of having the right answers, it’s
controlling the questions. The questions define the universe
within which an issue is discussed. If you ask the right
questions, any answer will further your cause. Citizens need to
control the agenda and challenge the basic assumptions behind the
questions officials and industry are posing.
Too often, public hearings are nothing more than staged events to
give the illusion that citizens’ opinions are valued and taken
seriously.
A typical public hearing opens with a presentation by the
industry. They are given 45 minutes or an hour to explain the
benefits of the proposed incinerator, pulp mill or waste dump.
Industry often uses this time to present details and statistics
that merely confuse everyone. The idea is to convince people
that the issue is too complicated for ordinary citizens to debate.
After the industry presentation, the public gets the microphone
for questions and comments. Often, each citizen is limited to
two or three minutes, “in the interest of fairness.” In many
cases, industry representatives are given time to respond to each
citizen’s comment, further reducing citizens’ time.
In the worst cases, public hearings are held at times and places
where most of the public can’t attend.
If you have a citizens’ group working on the issue, that group
should have the same amount of time that industry has, to present
their point of view.
If you have no organized citizens’ group but can line up a
speaker (perhaps an independent expert or someone from a state or
national environmental group), that person should be given time
equal to industry’s. Don’t let the deck be stacked against the
public.
And don’t wait until the last minute. As soon as you learn of a
public hearing, call whoever is running it, ask about the format,
and tell them you want equal time. This time should be in
addition to, not instead of, time for comments from the floor.
If the public official complains that this will make the public
hearing too long, suggest that industry’s time be halved and the
remainder be given to the citizens.
If officials won’t cooperate, get on the phone to the media and
create controversy over the unfair process before the hearing.
It’s illegitimate and misleading to call it a public hearing if
the public can’t have a say in deciding the process.
If, by the night of the public hearing, your viewpoint has not
received equal time, you might consider shutting down the
hearing. In at least one instance, activists who could not get a
fair hearing from the EPA held a rally outside the doors of the
public hearing room and the hearing did not take place. In
Casmalia, Calif., and in East Liverpool, Oh., citizens held a
rally INSIDE the public hearing room and the hearing did not take
place. Consider singing “America the Beautiful” loudly without
stopping.
If the public is not given some way to say “no” to a proposal,
then “public participation” is a sham.
CHALLENGE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS: While listening to an opponent, ask
yourself: What is the basic assumption behind this person’s
argument?
Water polluters usually assume that the environment can
assimilate a certain level of pollution, or that there is an
“acceptable” amount of human disease and death from pollution, or
that this industry cannot survive if it is not allowed to pollute.
When it’s your turn, don’t challenge facts, challenge
assumptions. (Industry would love to have you debate only the
facts and questions they wish to debate.)
Challenge industry’s right to dump ANYTHING dangerous into public
water (or air or soil). Defy industry’s claim that it has a
right to harm one-in-a-million people. Insist that
SUSTAINABILITY be brought to the fore. Make government and
industry fully consider ALTERNATIVES. Turn the debate to the
PRINCIPLES OF PRECAUTIONARY ACTION and CLEAN PRODUCTION; this
will create a more honest debate on rights and responsibilities
and WHO GETS TO DECIDE IN A DEMOCRACY. Soon you’ll be discussing
zero discharge and pollution prevention.
REMEMBER WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS. This is a question you should ask
yourself every time you speak in public. If you’re going to a
public meeting to take on the gov-ernor, your target isn’t the
governor, it’s your fellow citizens. Few public officials make
decisions based on “the right thing to do.” They make the
decisions they are pressured into making.
Taking on public officials is only a tool for reaching out to
your fellow citizens, showing them that they too can make
government accountable. The tool works best when used by many
hands.
–Mark Floegel
Descriptor terms: citizen action; grass-roots movement;
environmental justice; tactics; organizing to win; media
strategies; incineration; role playing; chronologies; public
hearings; public participation; mark floegel; zero discharge;
pollution prevention; precautionary principle; clean production;
sustainability; risk assessment; principle of precautionary
action;