Donny Browning (USFWS), Will Berson (Georgia Conservancy), Bill Farmer, Judy Jennings, Larry Keegan (Lockwood Greene), Teri Leffek, Morgan Rees (GPA Consultant)
The meeting began with the subject of peer review on which there was considerable discussion. Morgan Rees highlighted relevant points/ideas for the committee in a draft document (copy attached) circulated earlier last year on the subject. Morgan noted most of the studies are subject to peer review through federal law and internal review (ITR) through the USACE. Morgan also informed the group an additional level of review (the Washington Level Review Center) may be revived at the Washington level and would more than likely be in addition to the current ITR process. Will Berson raised the concern that the participants listed as performing peer review on the handout are all a part of the "system" and therefore subject to various pressures including political pressures. He doesn't feel the peer review process is public enough, however, had no solutions at this time. Judy Jennings agreed with Will's concerns but noted that after further exploration, the committee may conclude the current process will have to be sufficient. Morgan reminded the committee it came to closure on this issue at a previous OCG meeting - that the peer review process is sufficient but may be supplemented on a study-by-study basis if deemed necessary. (Ex. Beach Erosion, Aquifer and Economics Working Group studies) The committee did not reach consensus on the issue and decided to resume discussion at the next OCG meeting. Will will discuss his concerns further with other individuals and bring back to the committee concrete suggestions to address those concerns.
The committee then proceeded to discuss a final report/work product of the SEG. The committee decided the work "product" of the SEG consists of the various documents/materials produced by the group such as the SEG transcripts, etc. and recommends that a safe, public repository (such as the public library) is found for these items once the work of the SEG is complete. The committee also decided the SEG should produce some kind of report when finished to include an executive summary, possibly in the form of a matrix. The committee agreed the discussion of a final report is germane and timely and will begin reviewing draft outlines at the next meeting. Members should submit their outlines/ideas to Teri Leffek no later than two weeks before the next meeting. Teri will distribute all submissions to the committee membership so that they may be reviewed beforehand by all.
The last item on the agenda - committee procedures - was tabled until the next meeting due to time considerations.
Next Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 at 1:00 PM at Stevens Shipping
After the meeting was adjourned, Dave Kyler called and spoke with Morgan Rees who relayed Dave's comments to the group. Kyler expressed strong conviction that to implement a true 'peer review' process, participants (peer reviewers) must have no interest whatsoever in project outcome. By definition, 'stakeholders' have an interest in the project outcome. Therefore, a valid, objective peer review of studies or findings produced by or under the SEG may not be conducted by the SEG or any of its members or their affiliated organizations, agencies, or employers.