Stakeholder Evaluation Group (SEG) Meeting
Savannah Harbor Deepening Project
Draft Meeting Summary
June 8, 1999
Coastal Georgia Center, Savannah, Ga.
[Pursuant to SEG's request at the July 13, 1999, SEG meeting that the section of the June 8, 1999, SEG meeting summary dealing with discussion of how the "Results of the Facilitator’s Opening Round" was handled be portrayed in more detail, the following transcribed section has been prepared from the meeting tapes to augment the originally posted summary of the item presented above. Posted on web site 8/18/99.]
(Section begins on SIDE 1 of TAPE 1 for the June 8, 1999, SEG meeting)
Ben Dysart: … If you want to discuss this, feel free. But I'm not inclined to pursue lots of topics in great detail that end up taking significant time away from what most of the people view as the central purpose (interrupted)
Ben Brewton: I have something that I believe--and I wrote you about this.
Ben Dysart: Yes, you did.
Ben Brewton: --is a very, very significant issue, and I'd like to--with your blessings--present this to the group and if they don't want to talk about it and don't think it's significant to do that. I don't know how many of you had an opportunity to look at the web site. This is the web site put up last month by Lockwood Greene. I believe it's . . . .com/harbor and one of the promises that was made and I'm quoting from the page . . . Stakeholders' Evaluation Group meeting information. This page will contain information from the stakeholders' evaluation group. Documents are posted for public information exactly as they are received. On a further page, it says The contents of this site do not express the opinions of Lockwood Greene or Georgia Ports Authority. The information posted herein is solely for the convenience of the public. The contents of any file is the responsibility of the originator. Documents are posted without editing as they are received. I believe it was on Thursday morning, perhaps Wednesday morning, last week, Cathy Vaughn sent us an e-mail around saying that the meeting summary of the May meeting had been posted. When you go to that summary, which I don't know if it's been handed out here or not, but the first paragraph discusses the facilitator's opening round request where we were asked to write our opinions about two items on a piece of paper and hand it in. It says results are compiled and recorded at the end of this meeting summary. That was posted with the compilation that you were just handed out. It says, results of facilitator's opening round which have the benefits and barriers in our opinion to the greatest benefits that could come out of this process with the barriers. Two things, within a couple of hours after this was posted, I checked the web site back again and all of our comments had been deleted from the web site. I wrote Mr. Keegan and asked him what happened to them. He maintains the web site. He said, I was asked to removed them. I wrote back several times and asked who asked that they be removed and never got a response to those two or three e-mails. I have some comments and questions I want to pose to the group.
Ben Dysart: Did you ask me?
Ben Brewton: I asked you and you said it was my decision, but Morgan Rees called me on Friday as the GPA representative, before I continue with my comments which I'll go into and cover that I'd like to ask Morgan. We never got a chance to talk again this weekend, but he said there had been some phone calls and discussion on Thursday and Friday about this. And I wonder if you can tell us, I think the group needs to know exactly what occurred after that was initially posted on the web site, who talked to who when and what sequence resulted in this material being deleted from the web site and edited and censored from the meeting summary.
Morgan Rees: I think what I told you, Ben [Brewton], that I was out of the loop last week and I didn't know, and I was trying to catch up and find out.
Ben Brewton: Right. Well maybe Dave Schaller can tell us. He said you …
Morgan Rees: I just wanted to be sure the record shows clearly what our discussion was about.
Ben Brewton: Right. Well, we haven't had the discussion. You said that …
Morgan Rees: Yeah, but you quoted me incorrectly, and I wanted to make sure the record doesn't …
Ben Brewton: Okay. Well let's clarify that then. You said that there had been some discussion and so forth. You had been out of the loop and had just gotten back. You said you had a call from Charlie Griffen?
Morgan Rees: Yes. He asked me to call you because he had heard some concern. So that was what I was trying to track down.
Ben Brewton: Well I think. I'd like to see right now let's get an explanation of after that was posted to the web site, the sequence of events that resulted in its being deleted from the web site. So I want either you or Dave Schaller as GPA representatives (inaudible).
David Schaller: Be happy to. I was involved in that and asked Larry Keegan to remove the results of the facilitator's opening round.
Ben Brewton: OK. You asked for it.
David Schaller: That's right. For a couple of very good reasons in my view. One, it's not a work product of the SEG. It's a facilitator's exercise. Two, it's not properly labeled the way it ought to be. Three, it's anonymous. Four, I thought that some of the remarks in there were insulting and inappropriate.
Ben Brewton: You thought.
David Schaller: That's correct.
Ben Brewton: OK. So you took it upon yourself, you a GPA official, to direct your employee, Larry Keegan, to remove things that had come from this supposedly independent--and I put that in quotes--stakeholders' evaluation group?
David Schaller: That's right.
Ben Brewton: OK. That's right. Well, it strikes me as a great concern here, one of the reasons I think we can't get a lot of substantive stuff done in this group is because we're constantly, it's like pulling teeth with you guys, Dave, on the procedural, open records, proper procedures, and so forth and I am very, very concerned that you, the assistant director of the Georgia Ports Authority, took this information and directed it be removed from the web site. I think that goes beyond the scope of your authority over this SEG and I think it's improper and unethical. I have some more I'd like to say, but I see others …
Ben Dysart: Let me, I think, we've got a discussion now of unethical conduct and censorship, and I think it's appropriate for me to have a comment here. I was in the loop in the discussion with Dave [Schaller], a discussion about whether this was indeed an SEG work product. The discussion last time in this body, I think it was a clear the purpose of the web site, the new web site that was created, was to focus on decisions, consensus, recommendations used of the SEG, determinations that it had made, and official committee reports. As you know, a couple of months ago, there was a desire to put what might be characterized as perhaps some negative correspondence on the web site. My comment to some people is that's kind of like saying I'd like to put a 'kick me' sign on your back. And would you like to wear it around for the day? So I think, when David [Schaller] mentioned view of opinions vs. deliberations and decisions and the consensus of this body, this is an important distinction. And the barrier that was--or the standard that was--created a month ago was that what would be going on this web site would be things on which there was something of a consensus out of this body. David Schaller and I had a conversation about this, and this definitely is individual views--individual views requested by me to, as I said, to focus attention on the mission--the demanding, constructive, important purpose of this body. I also mentioned that David [Schaller] said that he thought there were some insulting comments in there. I think you find 20 or 30 or 40 people with very diverse views and perspectives, you're going to find a range of views. I would still say--and I told Mr. Schaller this before he raised the question--I said, on balance, you know, I think I'm very impressed with the strength, the constructive nature, the awareness, and so forth that's expressed in all these views. I said, I'm surprised that you don't have more than one or two negative views. So there is a clear understanding, I think, of what the intent of what is to go on this web site. I concur with that. This information. Ben [Brewton] did call me. We talked with e-mail a fair amount, and Ben [Brewton] indicated that he would like this information, and I think that within five minutes after he had made the request of me, he had it by e-mail. So there is, as far as any kind of effort to suppress information, there is none. There has never been any. There is a question about how is the appropriate mechanism of getting it out, but certainly it is my intention as facilitator to make sure that this was available, and so I think it's been done. But I personally take exception to any intimation that there was an effort to, if the characterization of censorship or unethical conduct was directed at me, I take significant exception.
Ben Brewton: Well, let me respond to that. I did not direct that to you. I directed it to whoever asked that it be removed. But I would like to clarify a couple of things that I strongly disagree with that you have said and differ. First of all, the April 6th meeting started out with a list of all the individual comments that were passed around the table that day. There was no objection by anyone. There was no effort to remove it and there was no suggestion that it was improper. And if these things have been put up as part of a complete record of this meeting which we haven't been able to do . . . discuss it a little later. Secondly, when I look at the summary of last month I think the decision made by this group was that the web site would be used for committee reports, meeting summaries, and agenda, first bulleted item. Second bulleted item says there will be no editing of what is provided to Larry to put on the web site. I feel like that commitment was made by GPA and it should be honored. Now, there may be a difference in the comments of April 6 more generic in nature and there was nothing negative about GPA in there. There were some comments negative about GPA in this, but I would say that part of the purpose of posting this on the web site, part of the purpose in our operating guidelines say that everything this group does is being done in accordance with the opening meeting . . . state of Georgia, not just to make it available to us but make it available to the public who is interested. Now these comments were put in, obviously by you, initially because they were appropriate to be in the meeting summary and you put them in there. And there's a precedent for that, in the previous month's the same thing was done. Secondly, yes, after I called you on the phone, Ben [Dysart], you did e-mail that to me within 5 minutes. I would like to point out that I sent an e-mail to you and to Larry Keegan and I believe possibly a copy to Cathy asking for a copy of the full unedited original posting that went most of the day without a response from anyone. It was only after I called by telephone did I get it, and I do appreciate that, but I think to say that I had it in five minutes of requesting it is also stretching it a little bit. I had some other comments, but I see some other cards up, and I'll defer for just a minute. Teri.
Teri Leffek: I guess I have a little different opinion on the matter. I think the comment facilitator's (inaudible) on this. These are opinions. I don't see any that these opinions that were listed, which first of all are anonymous, I (inaudible) are really related to our mission … exercise. I personally don't have a problem with taking off the web site. Each and every one of us has a copy . . . And I just hate to see. We're here to foster trust. We're here to get something accomplished. And I think there is an undertone of accusation toward GPA, and I hate to see that because it doesn't facilitate, doesn't help us move toward the purpose which is what we're trying to accomplish. And unless there is any other further discussion, I mean, we talked about at the beginning that we need to figure out what we want to accomplish discuss (inaudible) lengthy debate (inaudible) do to speed things up. And I would ask (inaudible) move on.
Ben Dysart: Patty.
Patty McIntosh: I get a little bit confused about the purpose of this exercise. You wanted our comments or concerns (inaudible) what happens if they don't build process
Ben Dysart: Well, as I've said a couple of times, the principal purpose, I've been a Member of lots of groups like this. I come in. I have my own view, my own agenda, my own view of the world. I have found that it's useful to know what's on the minds of other people around me, to help me understand what my views and perspective, understand and appreciate where the group is coming from. The purpose of this was not to circularize something for public consumption. 40 people have it. I suspect it was downloaded while it was on the web site. I presume that it is--or will be--widely distributed. I have no problem. But the purpose was for this group, for these individuals sitting around this table, to be able to share this. Now, to have to go into a lot of details and explanation of who shot John and so forth, and so that John Doe and Mary Brown out there who don't know the SEG from a hole in the ground, I think we could probably care less. But this was my initiative to provide some information to the Members. And the reason, as Ben [Brewton] pointed out, yes, the opening round from the previous month was completed in the summary. That was before the decision that was made last time that there would be a higher bar established to …
(Male voice): (inaudible)
Patty McIntosh (?????): Do you then see no purpose of the public's knowing the opinion of the group?
Ben Dysart: My personal opinion is that I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. I would have an objection to this being circularized as official views of the Stakeholders' Evaluation Group. Now, if somebody says what these folks have on their mind, that's fine. I'm happy to share that. But if you want to spend a great chunk of your time, if lots of you came here for this purpose, we can interpret and we can do all kinds of things, and we can put it in the newspaper, put it on the web or whatever. And all somebody has to do is say "By golly, we want to have a consensus that the SEG wants to publish this." And Cathy writes it up there as an action item. And by golly, it becomes an official product of this body, and goes on the web site. So if this body wants that, all you have to do is you can either say that, all of you nod your head or …
Patty McIntosh (?????): (Inaudible)
Ben Dysart: If doing something with opinions, if that is central to accomplishing the real work of this body, that would be great.
Patty McIntosh (?????): (Inaudible) process
Ben Dysart: I think that …
Judy Jennings: Ben, I'm sorry, come forward as we work toward it doesn't any sense to me to explain other players, so if they're going to be part of us, number one, part of I a positive action the process . . that you as facilitator tried to get a scope and a feel of what was happening in the group. I think by anonymous comments you did that that's what you are accomplishing, not a directive or. That's what you were trying to accomplish was a scope and a feel for what's coming out of the group.. So . . forget the goal. What you were trying to accomplish with it . If we accomplish that with this exercise, then this exercise is complete. If we want to do it another way . . . comments on record, I'd love to do it.
Ben Dysart: We can pass this set around and people can sign names to their boxes.
Judy Jennings: If we want to do it again . . . uncomfortable with anonymous names and comments so if you are trying to accomplish something as a piece of business, let's do it. But it was an exercise in trying to get you, our facilitator, to explain the facilitative process, a scope, a feel (inaudible)
Ben Dysart: OK. You are uncomfortable. Let me clarify, since words and phrases get sliced and diced very, very carefully. You are uncomfortable. Were you uncomfortable with putting it on the web site as an official product of SEG being anonymous, or are you just uncomfortable?
Judy Jennings: Yeah, that's . . . putting it on anonymously, because, if an allegation is made, the person to whom the allegation is made isn't able to respond to it.
Ben Dysart: The last comment that I would make is yes, this is useful feedback to me. I would think that it would be at least as useful to people out here to be able to see kind of where they are. And I would also submit that probably not everybody really cares where everybody else is. But those who do care, this is can be useful. It certainly was useful for me.
Ben Dysart: Neff.
Neff McIntosh: I think the great irony is that I read through these, and call me stupid, I did sense in the comments a sort of low level of distrust, caution, of suspicion. A number of the comments struck me as odd that the whole process played out that it was sort of self-fulfilling, that as it got up and came down, the schedule was covered up. And I don't understand what value is in that. I make my living on the river. I make a lot of my money at the Georgia Ports facilities. I'm here to . . . environmental and a river worker so I have no axe (???) to grind with the report (?????) except that there is a duty. . . and I think this was done improperly and I think the underlying level of trust that we have to have as a group the SEG, it would be better for me . . . environment and in my business world if I felt like the GPA was playing above board. And you and I had this discussion--about what is possible in this forum and in this particular project's contemplation and potential implementation. There is a way to do it, and there's a way not to do it. And I think this was done incorrectly. If we're going to agree to do something, then we ought to stick with it. If we're not we ought to abandon it. You took our time. We commented back to you. It got put up. Had it not perhaps been proper to put it up, then they should have done nothing. . . . Dave Schaller and the GPA . . . the comments would have been at the bottom of the report. There should have been . . . just that Dave Schaller . . . one copy, call Dysart and he'll send me a copy. That's how it should have read after it was all said and done. It worries me that the thing we need to do as group, because it is an incredibly diverse group, is be able to trust each other where we're going to do what we say we're going to do and follow through on it on a day-to-day basis because at the end of the day this has to work out for everybody and this I think is an indication that there is still some problem in people believing and trusting and having some sense that it will go forward and it will be a proper and just and equitable conclusion. . . And I'm concerned about that.
Ben Dysart: I would invite those of you who are Members of the SEG to, after the meeting, be sure and look over these if you care to. And I guess I would be interested in any feedback that you would have on the degree to which you perceive a thread of significant underlying lack of trust and so forth in here. I guess I saw a couple of extremely negative comments, which didn't surprise me at all. I guess there's been--could be--some mistrust and also some reality. Some things you look at and use the same words and express concern whether something will work out or not (inaudible) reality.
Neff McIntosh: Well, you know, reading them before they were taken down is one thing but reading them after they were taken down is another. You read them. You thought they were okay. Apparently Larry Keegan thought they were okay and they got posted. It was only until a GPA official saw them and I guess if I worked at GPA I'd like to see them differently too. But you passed, Keegan passed, and GPA, using Ben's [Brewton] word censored or took them down. And even that case, it should have . . . sent a copy before they were taken down . . .
(Female voice): (inaudible)
Ben Dysart: It's just kind of an open discussion going on as far as I can tell. Stuart.
Stuart Stevens: Question first. Is this an unedited version that you passed out today?
Ben Dysart: That is an unedited version. Everything in the boxes is verbatim to the last comma. Exactly what was posted.
Stuart Stevens: During the discussion I looked through it, and I don't see anything in here that's damaging to GPA. I don't really see any (Inaudible) definition (inaudible) looking at through GPA's eyes different than ours. But, as a state agency, I think it's inappropriate to edit and/or censor any public information (inaudible) inappropriate to censor it (inaudible).
Ben Dysart: I was going to say, in Larry Keegan's defense, I do not know that Larry made the determination or was asked to make a determination by me or anybody else whether something was appropriate. His job is to post things and, as far as I know, he did not make any determination. So Larry can stand out of the field of fire.
Larry Keegan: (inaudible)
Rob Mikell (?????): I have to agree with Stuart. I read it as well, and I didn't see anything history saw positive understood I see nothing wrong with putting them back on. (inaudible)
(Another male voice ?????): (inaudible)
Ben Dysart: OK, we've got a proposed action item is to re-post the opening round. OK. Duly seconded. Discussion?
(Male voice): There is a discussion. I would like to make to support that action item, and that is the knowledge of where people stand and how they feel should be an important thing to the SEG so you know where your barriers are, where your negative things are, so that you can work to overcome those. Not only through scientific information but through discussion of the diverse parties … (END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A)
Morgan Rees: (BEGINNING OF TAPE 1, SIDE B) … to help GPA move this process along. And I agree with, particularly Larry's (??????) comments, it's very important to know how the group feels, where they're coming from, and then try to deal with whatever issues come up. And then referring to Judy's comments, in trying to accomplish what Larry is suggesting, I agree a thousand percent, it's much more difficult to achieve a cooperative approach to the problem when there is an anonymous comment, and as a practical matter, you can't deal with anonymity, because you don't know if you're addressing the right problem. And I know some people may not want to express their view in public, but I would make the offer if everybody had my phone number and I have a new e-mail address, and I'll make that available. But if you have some really big problem with anything that GPA is doing, I'm available to talk, to spend whatever time it takes to work through the problem and then try to see what the issues are and deal with them. But as long as they're anonymous, I don't know how we're going to deal with them. But I just make that offer.
Ben Dysart: Neff.
Neff McIntosh: I was just going to say that the comments were valuable to me in getting a sense or gauge of how everybody else felt. That you weren't out in left field or in the wrong crowd or thinking their own thing, get a sense of where the thing was going. So that was valuable. So it does have value being up there. The last thing I want to do is make a request: is there a way to have GPA sort of agree that they're not going to take down stuff off the web site once it gets up. . . It seems like the clearinghouse.
Ben Dysart: David, would you like to the pledge in public for Neff?
David Schaller: No. What I'd like to do, Ben, is perhaps bring some order to the way those things are posted. Those are your renditions of the meeting. Okay? Not sanctioned by this body. If they had been brought to this body, this meeting, for approval, then they wouldn't have been posted. We could have raised our objections prior to the time they were posted on the web page. So these are simply the facilitator's rendition of what happened at the meeting that gets posted before the body even ...
Ben Dysart: Would it then be appropriate to simply have a policy of this body that we do not post any meeting summaries until they're approved?
Ben Brewton: But I think we've got reversed here. Remember the web site was put up so we could look at draft meeting summary before we came to the meeting and review it and know whether we wanted to approve it or not.
David Schaller: That's fine.
Ben Brewton: And, as such, it needs to be complete, 100% complete, and then when this group meets and votes or concurs whether to approve it or not, or to change it or amend it, then it would be changed. But in Georgia, draft minutes are an open record just like proofed minutes in the Georgia Open Records Law. So again I can clarify that was the method of distributing and disseminating the draft minutes. You will recall previously Cathy was e-mailing those out apparently with some degree of frustration about getting them delivered, and it was decided by this group, by consensus, that the draft minutes, the draft meeting summary, would be posted in total for us to see. Now, we can't proof part of that summary up there and then come to the meeting and know what we're reading. . .
Dave Schaller: No, that's not what (inaudible).
Ben Brewton: Dave, are you saying that we did not agree that the draft summary would be distributed via the web site?
David Schaller: No. I'm not saying that. I don't know if that's the case or not. I'm saying …
Ben Brewton: Wait a minute, I think if there is some question about that, we ought to resolve that. Am I correct, Mr. Facilitator? . . .
Ben Dysart: That is how things have been distributed. Are there other tent cards up? I think the motion and the second and the spirit of discussion is probably abundantly clear. Is there, what is the feeling in this body about the recommendation that we re-post the opening round and, that's it. Is everybody happy with that?
Neff McIntosh: I'm not sure that Dave really got to the point we got a . . . on that web site, it seems like there's some discrepancy in their opinion about whether it's up and available or it's going edited before or….
Dave Schaller: Neff (inaudible) read them before they came to me sounds sensible to me, and we ought to label them "draft" . . . and they ought to be then either revised in accordance with the will of the body or the draft should be taken off and . . .
Ben Brewton: I think they were labeled "draft" meeting summary, weren't they Larry?
(Female voice: (inaudible)
(Male voice): That's really not the question right now.
Ben Dysart: Okay. Is there a consensus about this proposed action item? Is everybody comfortable with that? Nod your head, or OK. Virtual unanimity. Is there any other action item that is necessary or desired on the part of the body?
(Male voice): Can we raise the temperature in here?
Ben Dysart: Raise the temperature? I thought that's what we'd been doing the last hour.
(General laughter)
(Male voice): Youall cold?
Ben Dysart: OK. Let's see. We're now ready to go into the agenda. OK. Bottom of page 1. Summary of SEG meetings. We're ready to discuss that.
[End of transcribed section added to June 8, 1999, SEG meeting summary.]
Beach Erosion Committee recommends SEG establish a Mitigation Committee to start dealing with conceptual impacts. (See Committee handout.)
Action/consensus: Defer to next meeting request for information on engineering solutions to overcome low DO in Savannah River. (Should this be added to Appendix B of the Operating Guidelines?)
Action/consensus: Defer consideration of formation of new committee again until next meeting. (Should this be added to Appendix B of the Operating Guidelines?)
Action/consensus: GPA will develop a template for committee task recommendations.
Action/consensus: GPA will develop this and present to SEG at a future meeting.
Action/consensus: Defer requested revisit of David Schaller’s statement at 5/4/99 SEG meeting until next meeting.
Action/consensus: Will be 7/13/99.
Action/consensus:
¨ ¨ ¨